Mote v. Seitz

132 S.E.2d 79, 219 Ga. 208, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 406
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 23, 1963·No. 22104·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

The parties to this litigation are coterminous landowners. On the trial, they agreed and stipulated in open court that the only issue to be determined was the location of the dividing line between their respective lands; and since by *209 that agreement and stipulation they eliminated all questions involved in the case except the one which relates only to the dividing line between their adjacent lands, the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of the writ of error. See Whaley v. Ellis, 209 Ga. 147 (71 SE2d 209) and the cases there cited.

Submitted July 8, 1963 Decided July 23, 1963. Herbert Edmondson, for plaintiff in error. Everett C. Brannon, Jr., Jeff C. Wayne, Brannon, Brannon & Schroeder, Telford, Wayne & Smith, contra.

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

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

Mote v. Seitz, 132 S.E.2d 79, 219 Ga. 208, 1963 Ga. LEXIS 406 (Ga. 1963).

132 S.E.2d 79 (Mote v. Seitz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Patterson v. Bailey
150 S.E.2d 645 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
Smith v. Morgan
148 S.E.2d 385 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)