Jackson v. Jackson
This text of 68 S.E.2d 469 (Jackson v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. The plaintiff in error, having conceded in his brief that he was not entitled to recover in ejectment, no longer complains as to this aspect of the case and, for this reason, this court' will not concern itself with count one of the petition. Hill v. Merritt, 146 Ga. 307 (91 S. E. 204); Ward v. Speer, 153 Ga. 29 (111 S. E. 411); Trustees, Jesse Parker Williams Hospital v. Nisbet, 191 Ga. 821 (14 S. E. 2d, 64); Barnes v. Bell, 206 Ga. 660 (58 S. E. 2d, 400).
2. The evidence showing that there were other heirs who would be necessary parties to partitioning, but who were not parties to this action, the court did not err in withdrawing from the jury count two praying that the land be partitioned. Jones v. Napier, 93 Ga. 582 (20 S. E. 41); Wright v. Hill, 140 Ga. 554 (79 S. E. 546); Hill v. McCandless, 198 Ga. 737 (32 S. E. 2d, 774). Under the above rulings, all grounds of the motion for new trial are without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
68 S.E.2d 469, 208 Ga. 592, 1952 Ga. LEXIS 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-jackson-ga-1952.