Palmer v. Jackson

62 S.E.2d 366, 82 Ga. App. 702, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 1193
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 1, 1950·No. 33295·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Sutton, C.J.

Clifford Jackson made application to the land processioners of the 862nd Militia District of White County to have the line between his land and the land of Willie Palmer in said district surveyed and marked anew, said line being described in the application as: “The line beginning at a rock corner near Willie Palmer’s barn; thence west a straight line to a pine tree; thence southwest to a black gum on the original line.” The processioners, together with the acting county surveyor, made a survey and a return of their acts, and a protest thereto was filed by Willie Palmer.

The processioners and surveyor, according to the return and plat, ran a line from the rock corner on the road N. 81 y2 degrees, W. 817 feet to a pine stump; thence S. 6D/2 degrees W. 535 feet to a blackjack; thence S. 54 degrees W. 743 feet to a black gum. The protestant contends that the line surveyed by the processioners and surveyer is not the correct line between his land and the land of the applicant. He alleged in his protest that the true dividing line between their lands commences at the rock corner on the road near his barn and runs 2% degrees south of west 526 feet to a marked pine tree, marked with a cross and three hacks; thence 10 degrees south of west along a marked line 650 feet to a marked blackjack tree; thence 35 degrees south of west 743 feet to a black gum tree. He alleged *703 that this has been the dividing line between these two tracts of land for seven years or more, and attached a plat of this line to his protest.

The case was tried and resulted in a verdict and judgment in' favor of the applicant, Clifford Jackson. Palmer made a motion for a new trial, which was amended by adding six special grounds, the motion was overruled, and he excepted to the judgment overruling his motion.

No harmful error is shown by special grounds 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the amended motion.

Special ground 2 excepts to the statement in the charge of the court that pursuant to the application “the processioners, G. B. Morris, B. L. McGee and B. G. Seabolt went out and ran the line between the property owners” and made a return, on the ground that only two of the processioners acted in making the survey. A majority of the processioners, with the county surveyor, may trace and mark anew a dividing line between adjoining landowners in a processioning proceeding. Code, § 85-1605; Reynolds v. Kinsey, 50 Ga. App. 385 (3) (178 S. E. 200).

Special ground 3 complains that the court erred in telling the jury that the original application of Jackson to have the line processioned had been introduced in evidence and that they could consider it along with the other evidence in the case. The original application is admissible in evidence along with the return of the processioners and the plat of the surveyor, and it was not error to instruct the jury that they could consider the application along with the other evidence. Castleberry v. Parrish, 135 Ga. 527 (3) (69 S. E. 817); Edenfield v. Lanier, 77 Ga. App. 535 (48 S. E. 2d, 777).

The charge complained of in ground 4 of the motion, that if the jury believed from the evidence that the processioners did not mark out a new line, but an old, established line, their verdict would be in favor of the applicant, was not an intimation and expression of an opinion by the court on the evidence against the movant. In the sentence next preceding the charge complained of the court had instructed the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the processioners had marked out or made a new line, their finding would be in favor of the protestant.

Where, during the trial, the testimony of a witness was *704 disallowed, it was not error for the court, at the conclusion of the evidence by both parties, to admit the testimony so ruled out without having it read to the jury, as contended in special ground 5 of the motion.

It was not error to admit the testimony of Mrs. Clifford Jackson as complained of in ground 6 of the motion.

The processioners testified to the effect that they undertook to run the line between Jackson and Palmer, and the dispute was whether a stump or a marked pine tree was the line. Jackson pointed our to them three pine stumps on the hill within a radius of 10 to 15 feet from each other and claimed the line ran west from the rock corner on the road near Palmer’s barn to one of the stumps, and Palmer claimed the line ran from the undisputed rock corner on the road to a marked pine tree on the hill or ridge. The surveyor ran a line from the rock corner west and went between the stump and the marked pine, and the processioners undertook to set up a compromise line the first time but made no return of that survey. One of the processioners testified, “This here marked pine marked here (indicating) was only 30 feet off of -a due-west line. I saw the mark on the pine. That did not indicate anything to me, we were hunting for the line. We were undertaking to run it from some deeds and we couldn’t make the deeds close; one went this way north and one went this way south and we never did set this up as a line. We run around here and couldn’t do anything with it, and we decided the distance from this pine to this other pine (indicating) and run a line and we tried to get a compromise on it and we didn’t do any good at that. That line we tried to set up was a new line.”

Two of the processioners and surveyor went back at a later date and this same processioner testified: “Mr. Luther Jackson said he and Mr. John Brown divided it. He said they started at the rock and went up the ridge and we had the surveyor start at the rock and make a straight line to that stump up there and we set that up as the line. 'Q. Did you find any evidence of a line ever being there? A. Not a bit. Q. You were setting up absolutely a new line? A. Well, I don’t know whether ’we did or not—that was what we were told. Q. So far as you know, you set up a new line? A. It was new to *705 us, yeah.’ We did not know we were setting up a new line when we were doing it; we thought we were hunting the old line and we thought we were going on the old line by what evidence we could get from Mr. Jackson.” The processioners testified that they found no physical evidence of any kind of any line from the rock corner on the road to the pine stump on the hill and from the pine stump to the marked blackjack.

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

Palmer v. Jackson, 62 S.E.2d 366, 82 Ga. App. 702, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 1193 (Ga. Ct. App. 1950).

62 S.E.2d 366 (Palmer v. Jackson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Purcell v. C. Goldstein & Sons, Inc.
305 S.E.2d 10 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Hackle v. Bowen
81 S.E.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Palmer v. Jackson
72 S.E.2d 130 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)