Register v. Herrin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Register v. Herrin

164 S.E.2d 124, 224 Ga. 673, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 895

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 10, 1968

Docket24790

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 S.E.2d 124 (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, 164 S.E.2d 124, 224 Ga. 673, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 895 (Ga. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Mobley, Justice.

The appeal is from the direction of a verdict and from the judgment thereon, sustaining the plea of res judicata to an action brought for ejectment from described land lying between described boundary lines. The essential question in determining title to the land in dispute is not one [674]*674of title but one of boundary. The plea was properly sustained by reason of a previous processioning proceeding in an action brought by these same plaintiffs against the defendant involving the same land, where the sole issue was boundary and not title. The boundary line was established by judgment in the processioning proceeding, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, thus settling the issue. This case is in all material aspects identical with Edenfield v. Lanier, 206 Ga. 696 (58 SE2d 188), which is controlling here.

Submitted September 10, 1968 Decided October 10, 1968. Albert Butler, for appellants. Dawson & Phillips, Richard D. Phillips, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Mobley, Justice.

The appeal is from the direction of a verdict and from the judgment thereon, sustaining the plea of res judicata to an action brought for ejectment from described land lying between described boundary lines. The essential question in determining title to the land in dispute is not one [674]*674of title but one of boundary. The plea was properly sustained by reason of a previous processioning proceeding in an action brought by these same plaintiffs against the defendant involving the same land, where the sole issue was boundary and not title. The boundary line was established by judgment in the processioning proceeding, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, thus settling the issue. This case is in all material aspects identical with Edenfield v. Lanier, 206 Ga. 696 (58 SE2d 188), which is controlling here.

Submitted September 10, 1968 Decided October 10, 1968. Albert Butler, for appellants. Dawson & Phillips, Richard D. Phillips, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E.2d 124, 224 Ga. 673, 1968 Ga. LEXIS 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/register-v-herrin-ga-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack