Minor v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of Georgia

Minor v. Sullivan

141 S.E.2d 910, 220 Ga. 793, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 634

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 8, 1965

Docket22883

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.E.2d 910 (Minor v. Sullivan) 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

Minor v. Sullivan, 141 S.E.2d 910, 220 Ga. 793, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 634 (Ga. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Dxjckworth, Chief Justice.

This is an action for land in the statutory form in two counts with an abstract of title annexed to the petition. The property from which the petitioner seeks to eject the defendant is therein accurately described by metes and bounds with landmarks and monuments given, as well as the boundary on the south by adjoining landowners, and as being wholly or partially in a named land lot and district in Crawford County, Ga. The description is not subject to the attack made, nor is the allegation that the defendant has trespassed upon his property and has taken actual possession of a number of acres on the west side sufficient to bring this case within the ruling of Tanner v. Peck, 209 Ga. 249 (2) (71 SE2d 611), and cases cited therein, where the plaintiff had indefinitely described the premises by describing the property sued for as being embraced in a larger tract. The abstract, describing the property as being the north half of the land lot, bounded on four sides by named property owners, is not in conflict with the description in the petition, conceding but not holding that Code § 33-117 requiring the annexation of an abstract of the title relied on for recovery is other than notice of the title that will be relied on. See Yonn v. Pittman, 82 Ga. 637 (9 SE 667); Dugas v. Hammond, 130 Ga. 87 (60 SE 268); Chidsey v. Brookes, 130 Ga. 218 (60 SE 529, 14 AC 975); Crawford v. Carter, 146 Ga. 526 (91 SE 780); Chancey v. Johnson, 148 Ga. 87 (95 SE 975); Gray v. Bradford, 194 Ga. 492 (2) (22 SE2d 43); Foster v. Rowland, 194 Ga. 845 (22 SE2d 777); Heath v. Miller, 197 Ga. 443 (29 SE2d 416); Palmer v. Mann, 202 Ga. 35 (41 SE2d 304). The petition alleges a cause of action for the relief sought, and the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Argued March 8, 1965 Decided April 8, 1965. H. Thad Crawley, for plaintiff in error. din C. Hammock, contra.

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

Dxjckworth, Chief Justice.

This is an action for land in the statutory form in two counts with an abstract of title annexed to the petition. The property from which the petitioner seeks to eject the defendant is therein accurately described by metes and bounds with landmarks and monuments given, as well as the boundary on the south by adjoining landowners, and as being wholly or partially in a named land lot and district in Crawford County, Ga. The description is not subject to the attack made, nor is the allegation that the defendant has trespassed upon his property and has taken actual possession of a number of acres on the west side sufficient to bring this case within the ruling of Tanner v. Peck, 209 Ga. 249 (2) (71 SE2d 611), and cases cited therein, where the plaintiff had indefinitely described the premises by describing the property sued for as being embraced in a larger tract. The abstract, describing the property as being the north half of the land lot, bounded on four sides by named property owners, is not in conflict with the description in the petition, conceding but not holding that Code § 33-117 requiring the annexation of an abstract of the title relied on for recovery is other than notice of the title that will be relied on. See Yonn v. Pittman, 82 Ga. 637 (9 SE 667); Dugas v. Hammond, 130 Ga. 87 (60 SE 268); Chidsey v. Brookes, 130 Ga. 218 (60 SE 529, 14 AC 975); Crawford v. Carter, 146 Ga. 526 (91 SE 780); Chancey v. Johnson, 148 Ga. 87 (95 SE 975); Gray v. Bradford, 194 Ga. 492 (2) (22 SE2d 43); Foster v. Rowland, 194 Ga. 845 (22 SE2d 777); Heath v. Miller, 197 Ga. 443 (29 SE2d 416); Palmer v. Mann, 202 Ga. 35 (41 SE2d 304). The petition alleges a cause of action for the relief sought, and the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. Argued March 8, 1965 Decided April 8, 1965. H. Thad Crawley, for plaintiff in error. din C. Hammock, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E.2d 910, 220 Ga. 793, 1965 Ga. LEXIS 634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minor-v-sullivan-ga-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack