Register v. Herrin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Register v. Herrin

138 S.E.2d 169, 220 Ga. 223, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 495

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1964

Docket22547

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 169 (Register v. Herrin) 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

Register v. Herrin, 138 S.E.2d 169, 220 Ga. 223, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 495 (Ga. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, Justice.

This litigation was filed originally for both legal and injunctive relief. The real issue involved in the case is the dividing or boundary line between the parties as coterminous landowners where neither disputes the title of the other to his respective tract. During the pendency of the case, the parties agreed for three competent registered surveyors to locate and establish their boundary line and they further agreed that the findings of the surveyors, or a majority of them, would, as to that issue, be conclusive and binding on them and be the basis for a judgment in the case. Pur[224]*224suant to and in accordance with the agreement, the plaintiffs named one surveyor, the defendant another and the court appointed the third. The surveyors acted and a majority of them ascertained and fixed a boundary line between the parties. The agreement eliminated all issues in the case except the location of the boundary line between the lands of the parties; and since it did, the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of the writ of error and it is accordingly transferred to that court for decision. See Taylor v. Murray, 215 Ga. 628 (112 SE2d 583); Cauble v. Weimer, 215 Ga. 651 (112 SE2d 584); and Gilbert Hotel No. 22, Inc. v. Black, 192 Ga. 641, 643 (16 SE2d 435).

Submitted July 13, 1964 Decided September 11, 1964. Albert E. Butler, for plaintiff in error. Wm. A. Zorn, Zorn & Royal, contra.

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, Justice.

This litigation was filed originally for both legal and injunctive relief. The real issue involved in the case is the dividing or boundary line between the parties as coterminous landowners where neither disputes the title of the other to his respective tract. During the pendency of the case, the parties agreed for three competent registered surveyors to locate and establish their boundary line and they further agreed that the findings of the surveyors, or a majority of them, would, as to that issue, be conclusive and binding on them and be the basis for a judgment in the case. Pur[224]*224suant to and in accordance with the agreement, the plaintiffs named one surveyor, the defendant another and the court appointed the third. The surveyors acted and a majority of them ascertained and fixed a boundary line between the parties. The agreement eliminated all issues in the case except the location of the boundary line between the lands of the parties; and since it did, the Court of Appeals and not this court has jurisdiction of the writ of error and it is accordingly transferred to that court for decision. See Taylor v. Murray, 215 Ga. 628 (112 SE2d 583); Cauble v. Weimer, 215 Ga. 651 (112 SE2d 584); and Gilbert Hotel No. 22, Inc. v. Black, 192 Ga. 641, 643 (16 SE2d 435).

Submitted July 13, 1964 Decided September 11, 1964. Albert E. Butler, for plaintiff in error. Wm. A. Zorn, Zorn & Royal, contra.

Transferred to- the Court of Appeals.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 169, 220 Ga. 223, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/register-v-herrin-ga-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack