Selph v. Selph
This text of 72 S.E. 31 (Selph v. Selph) 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.
Opinion
1. This case was here on a former occasion. Selph v. Selph, 133 Ga. 409 (65 S. E. 881). After the decision in the Supreme Court, and before the termination of the ease in the superior court, the defendants filed an application to the court of ordinary to establish a copy of the lost original return of the appraisers setting apart the land to the defendants as a year’s support. The petition to establish the lost paper was not served upon the plaintiffs in the pending suit, nor did they have notice of the application; but the ordinary, on the day the application was presented, entered an order ex parte establishing the copy in lieu of the lost original. On a subsequent trial of the case in the superior court, when the copy so established was offered in evidence, it was admitted over the objection, among others, that the order establishing the lost record was passed without any notice to the plaintiffs, as required by law. Under the rulings in the cases of Cleghorn v. Johnson, 69 Ga. 369, Wimberly v. Mansfield, 70 Ga. 783, Cosnahan v. [741]*741Rowland, 99 Ga. 285 (25 S. E. 647), and Allen v. Lindsey, 113 Ga. 521 (38 S. E. 975), this was error.
2. The case was -submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and. the defendants in error relied both upon record title'and upon. • prescription. The evidence is not sufficient to require a finding in favor of the prescriptive title. Civil Code (1910), § 3725.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 S.E. 31, 136 Ga. 740, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/selph-v-selph-ga-1911.