Screven Oil Mill v. Hankinson

Supreme Court of Georgia

Screven Oil Mill v. Hankinson

163 S.E. 905, 174 Ga. 774, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 137

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1932

DocketNo. 8911

StatusPublished

This text of 163 S.E. 905 (Screven Oil Mill v. Hankinson) 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

Screven Oil Mill v. Hankinson, 163 S.E. 905, 174 Ga. 774, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 137 (Ga. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

Screven Oil Mill brought an action against Mrs. M. M. Hankinson, seeking to recover 350 acres of land. The defendant conceded the legal ownership of plaintiff and right of possession to 210'acres of the land sued for, but denied that she was in possession of any land as described in the petition. She admitted that she was in possession of 100 acres of land, including her residence, but insisted that this land was not within the description in plaintiff’s petition. By agreement in judicio, the parties limited the suit to the sole question of the right of plaintiff to recover 100 acres on which defendant resided. The jury found for the defendant. The exception is to the refusal of a new trial.

The motion consists of the general grounds and three grounds added by amendment. Some of the brief of evidence is rendered unintelligible, because of the word “indicating” in parenthesis found in many sentences, without furnishing any explanation of what was indicated. Under the pleadings and the evidence the verdict was fully warranted, if not in fact demanded. None of the special grounds of the motion for new trial require a reversal of the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Gilbert, J.

Screven Oil Mill brought an action against Mrs. M. M. Hankinson, seeking to recover 350 acres of land. The defendant conceded the legal ownership of plaintiff and right of possession to 210'acres of the land sued for, but denied that she was in possession of any land as described in the petition. She admitted that she was in possession of 100 acres of land, including her residence, but insisted that this land was not within the description in plaintiff’s petition. By agreement in judicio, the parties limited the suit to the sole question of the right of plaintiff to recover 100 acres on which defendant resided. The jury found for the defendant. The exception is to the refusal of a new trial.

The motion consists of the general grounds and three grounds added by amendment. Some of the brief of evidence is rendered unintelligible, because of the word “indicating” in parenthesis found in many sentences, without furnishing any explanation of what was indicated. Under the pleadings and the evidence the verdict was fully warranted, if not in fact demanded. None of the special grounds of the motion for new trial require a reversal of the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 905, 174 Ga. 774, 1932 Ga. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/screven-oil-mill-v-hankinson-ga-1932.