Nasworthy v. James

Supreme Court of Georgia

Nasworthy v. James

110 S.E. 7, 152 Ga. 368, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 94

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1921

DocketNo. 2502

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 7 (Nasworthy v. James) 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

Nasworthy v. James, 110 S.E. 7, 152 Ga. 368, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 94 (Ga. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

1. A deed to land is not void for uncertainty of description, if it furnishes the key to the identification of the land intended to be conveyed by the grantor. Civil Code (1910), § 4182; Swint v. Swint, 147 Ga. 467 (2) (94 S. E. 571); Boyd v. Sanders, 148 Ga. 839 (98 S. E. 490). Accordingly, it was not erroneous to admit in evidence a deed describing the land as “the Pollett old mill tract of land” in a named militia district and county. Ga. & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Shiver, 121 Ga. 708 (49 S. E. 700); Reeves v. Allgood, 133 Ga. 835 (3), 836 (67 S. E. 82).

2. Where in an action for land the plaintiff seeks to recover upon proof of title by prescription under color of title, it is not error to admit in evidence a sheriff’s deed made to the plaintiff’s predecessor in title who purchase 1 at the sheriff’s sale, over defendant’s objection because the fi. fa. under which the land was sold did not accompany the deed. Cox v. Goodman, 139 Ga. 25 (76 S. E. 357), and cases there cited.

3. The complaint that the court, in a portion of his charge quoted in the motion for new trial, erroneously placed the burden of proof upon the defendant in the action is, in view of the general charge, not well taken.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

George, J.

1. A deed to land is not void for uncertainty of description, if it furnishes the key to the identification of the land intended to be conveyed by the grantor. Civil Code (1910), § 4182; Swint v. Swint, 147 Ga. 467 (2) (94 S. E. 571); Boyd v. Sanders, 148 Ga. 839 (98 S. E. 490). Accordingly, it was not erroneous to admit in evidence a deed describing the land as “the Pollett old mill tract of land” in a named militia district and county. Ga. & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Shiver, 121 Ga. 708 (49 S. E. 700); Reeves v. Allgood, 133 Ga. 835 (3), 836 (67 S. E. 82).

2. Where in an action for land the plaintiff seeks to recover upon proof of title by prescription under color of title, it is not error to admit in evidence a sheriff’s deed made to the plaintiff’s predecessor in title who purchase 1 at the sheriff’s sale, over defendant’s objection because the fi. fa. under which the land was sold did not accompany the deed. Cox v. Goodman, 139 Ga. 25 (76 S. E. 357), and cases there cited.

3. The complaint that the court, in a portion of his charge quoted in the motion for new trial, erroneously placed the burden of proof upon the defendant in the action is, in view of the general charge, not well taken.

4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 7, 152 Ga. 368, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nasworthy-v-james-ga-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack