Martin v. Pattillo

Supreme Court of Georgia

Martin v. Pattillo

55 S.E. 240, 126 Ga. 436, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 399

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 9, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 55 S.E. 240 (Martin v. Pattillo) 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.

Bluebook

Martin v. Pattillo, 55 S.E. 240, 126 Ga. 436, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 399 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Evans, J.

1. Where, after proeessioners have duly made out and certified a plat as required by law, a protest to their action is filed by an adjoining landowner and the same is returned to the superior court, where a verdict is rendered sustaining the return of the proeessioners, and such return is made the judgment of the court, the judgment unappealed from is conclusive as against the protestant and his privies in title. Howland v. Brown, 92 Ga. 513.

2. After such judgment, the true line between the coterminous proprietors is that marked by the proeessioners, and any invasion thereafter across, the line thus established and upon the land,of the adjacent owner by the protestant in the processioning proceeding would amount to a trespass.

3. If repeated acts of wrong are done or threatened, so as to make the trespass a continuous one, they may be repressed in equity by injunction.

4. There was no error in'the allowance and rejection of evidence, and the. court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

Upon, the application, of Pattillo the line around his land was ■run and marked by processioners. To their return Martin filed a protest on the ground that they, instead of following the real line dividing his land from that of Pattillo, had run a new line .so as to put about one and a half acres of his land on Patillo’s side of the line so run. Upon the trial of the issue thus made a .jury found in favor of Pattillo, and judgment in his favor was ■■entered, which has not been reversed or set aside. Martin disregarded the processioners’ return, and repeatedly entered on the one .and a half acres, tearing down a fence built by Patillo, cutting and removing timber, etc. An injunction was granted, restraining him from further trespassing; and he excepted, contending that the ■court erred in admitting in evidence the record of the processioning proceedings, over his objection that it was not a muniment of title and did not show possession; and in not allowing him and ■other witnesses to testify to the length of time and character of his possession of the land in dispute; and in granting the injunction, which operated as a writ of possession and a mandatory order, when the plantiff had an ample and adequate remedy at law by .action of ejectment.

B. M. Smith and Brown & Brown, for plaintiff in error. George W. Bryan, contra.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Evans, J.

1. Where, after proeessioners have duly made out and certified a plat as required by law, a protest to their action is filed by an adjoining landowner and the same is returned to the superior court, where a verdict is rendered sustaining the return of the proeessioners, and such return is made the judgment of the court, the judgment unappealed from is conclusive as against the protestant and his privies in title. Howland v. Brown, 92 Ga. 513.

2. After such judgment, the true line between the coterminous proprietors is that marked by the proeessioners, and any invasion thereafter across, the line thus established and upon the land,of the adjacent owner by the protestant in the processioning proceeding would amount to a trespass.

3. If repeated acts of wrong are done or threatened, so as to make the trespass a continuous one, they may be repressed in equity by injunction.

4. There was no error in'the allowance and rejection of evidence, and the. court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.

Upon, the application, of Pattillo the line around his land was ■run and marked by processioners. To their return Martin filed a protest on the ground that they, instead of following the real line dividing his land from that of Pattillo, had run a new line .so as to put about one and a half acres of his land on Patillo’s side of the line so run. Upon the trial of the issue thus made a .jury found in favor of Pattillo, and judgment in his favor was ■■entered, which has not been reversed or set aside. Martin disregarded the processioners’ return, and repeatedly entered on the one .and a half acres, tearing down a fence built by Patillo, cutting and removing timber, etc. An injunction was granted, restraining him from further trespassing; and he excepted, contending that the ■court erred in admitting in evidence the record of the processioning proceedings, over his objection that it was not a muniment of title and did not show possession; and in not allowing him and ■other witnesses to testify to the length of time and character of his possession of the land in dispute; and in granting the injunction, which operated as a writ of possession and a mandatory order, when the plantiff had an ample and adequate remedy at law by .action of ejectment.

B. M. Smith and Brown & Brown, for plaintiff in error. George W. Bryan, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 S.E. 240, 126 Ga. 436, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-pattillo-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack