Patterson v. Bailey

Supreme Court of Georgia

Patterson v. Bailey

150 S.E.2d 645, 222 Ga. 422, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 498

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 8, 1966

Docket23599

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 S.E.2d 645 (Patterson v. Bailey) 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

Patterson v. Bailey, 150 S.E.2d 645, 222 Ga. 422, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 498 (Ga. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Presiding Justice.

The plaintiff brought an action for land and mesne profits against the defendant. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal is from a judgment overruling defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and from a judgment denying his motion for a new trial. Appellant states in his brief that the real issue is the dividing line between the parties' respective adj acent tracts, and the evidence introduced on the trial shows that the parties are coterminous landowners, that neither disputes the title of the other to his respective tract, and that the only issue between them is the proper location of the boundary line between their respective tracts. Such being the case, the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Johnson v. Woodward Lmbr. Co., 202 Ga. 288 (42 SE2d 639); Brydie v. Pritchard, 213 Ga. 588 (100 SE2d 435); and Mote v. Seitz, 219 Ga. 208 (132 SE2d 79).

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

Candler, Presiding Justice.

The plaintiff brought an action for land and mesne profits against the defendant. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff. This appeal is from a judgment overruling defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and from a judgment denying his motion for a new trial. Appellant states in his brief that the real issue is the dividing line between the parties' respective adj acent tracts, and the evidence introduced on the trial shows that the parties are coterminous landowners, that neither disputes the title of the other to his respective tract, and that the only issue between them is the proper location of the boundary line between their respective tracts. Such being the case, the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of the appeal. Johnson v. Woodward Lmbr. Co., 202 Ga. 288 (42 SE2d 639); Brydie v. Pritchard, 213 Ga. 588 (100 SE2d 435); and Mote v. Seitz, 219 Ga. 208 (132 SE2d 79).

Transferred to the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E.2d 645, 222 Ga. 422, 1966 Ga. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-bailey-ga-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack