Lewis v. Fry
This text of 22 S.E.2d 817 (Lewis v. Fry) 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
As many times held by this court, its constitutional jurisdiction of cases “respecting title to land’’ (Code, § 2-3005) imports only cases that directly involve the title, and does not cover those that only incidentally involve such a question. Colley v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 156 Ga. 43, 44 (118 S. E. 712), and cit.; Grobli v. Foreman, 171 Ga. 712 (2) (156 S. E. 622) ; Farkas v. Stephens, 181 Ga. 669 (183 S. E. 796); Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v Cross, 28 Ga. App. 629 (112 S. E. 654). The present action was one at law for damages, and did not seek to determine any question as to the title of land. *843 The fact that one of the questions raised by the demurrer to the petition, in determining who would be a proper party plaintiff, involves the validity or construction of a trust deed executed to the plaintiff, does not make the case one directly involving title to the land described in such deed. The bill of exceptions must be
Transferred to the Court of Appeals.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
22 S.E.2d 817, 194 Ga. 842, 1942 Ga. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-fry-ga-1942.