McCullough v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co.
23 S.E. 838, 97 Ga. 373
Opinions
This being an action for the recovery of land, and the evidence being such as to warrant the trial judge in entertaining the opinion that the jury ought to have found that the plaintiff’s right of action was barred by prescription, there was no error in granting a new trial on this ground.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
McCullough v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co., 23 S.E. 838, 97 Ga. 373 (Ga. 1895).
23 S.E. 838 (McCullough v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
City of Atlanta v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.
98 S.E. 83 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1919)
Brown v. Caraker
94 S.E. 759 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1917)
McCullough v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Co.
32 S.E. 97 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)