Newberry v. Miller

130 S.E. 829, 34 Ga. App. 695, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 502
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedDecember 16, 1925
Docket16815
StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 829 (Newberry v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newberry v. Miller, 130 S.E. 829, 34 Ga. App. 695, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 502 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

Luke, J.

Mat Miller instituted processioners’ proceedings to determine a certain land line. The return of the processioners was favorable to Miller’s contention, and William Newberry 'and others filed objections thereto. A trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for Miller.

1. The 'evidence being in sharp conflict, the verdict can not be changed for any reason assigned in the general grounds of the motion for a new trial.

2. A careful study of the record discloses that the true question involved was whether or not Miller had "previously agreed by word or conduct to accept as his boundary a line run several feet from a boundary line shown to have been theretofore established for approximately fifty years. The court’s charge, considered as a whole, properly presented this question, and was not subject to the criticism that it was contradictory, or that in it the court expressed an opinion as to the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 S.E. 829, 34 Ga. App. 695, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newberry-v-miller-gactapp-1925.