Partee v. Dickson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Partee v. Dickson

1 S.E. 221, 78 Ga. 34

DecidedJanuary 18, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.E. 221 (Partee v. Dickson) 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

Partee v. Dickson, 1 S.E. 221, 78 Ga. 34 (Ga. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

BlandFord, Justice.

Dickson sued out possessory warrant against Partee to recover possession of certain cotton. The case was tried before the judge of the county court, and he awarded the cotton to Dickson. The plaintiff in the proceedings made the following case: Partee let Sank Mathews have the use of certain land for one year for the clearing. Mathews, finding that he could not cultivate the land, let Dickson have it. Dickson cultivated the land until July, when Partee drove off Dickson’s hands and afterwards gathered the crop by picking out the cotton; and it is this cotton which is the subject of the controversy.

We are quite clear that, under these facts, a possessory warrant will not lie; argument is unnecessary, demonstration not needed. The superior court should have sustained the petition for certiorari, reversed the judgment of the county judge, and directed the possessory warrant to have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed.

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

BlandFord, Justice.

Dickson sued out possessory warrant against Partee to recover possession of certain cotton. The case was tried before the judge of the county court, and he awarded the cotton to Dickson. The plaintiff in the proceedings made the following case: Partee let Sank Mathews have the use of certain land for one year for the clearing. Mathews, finding that he could not cultivate the land, let Dickson have it. Dickson cultivated the land until July, when Partee drove off Dickson’s hands and afterwards gathered the crop by picking out the cotton; and it is this cotton which is the subject of the controversy.

We are quite clear that, under these facts, a possessory warrant will not lie; argument is unnecessary, demonstration not needed. The superior court should have sustained the petition for certiorari, reversed the judgment of the county judge, and directed the possessory warrant to have been dismissed.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E. 221, 78 Ga. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partee-v-dickson-ga-1887.