Simpson v. Mizell & Brother
This text of 81 S.E. 198 (Simpson v. Mizell & Brother) 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
Application having been made for a warrant under the head-right law of this State then in force, which application was caveated by a party named as an adjacent owner, and the issues made by the application and the caveat having been transmitted to the superior court, the court did not err upon the trial in granting a nonsuit, it appearing, upon the conclusion of the testimony for the applicant, that, considering the description of the land of which a grant was sought by the applicant and the description thereof in the testimony offered by the applicant, the tract of land which the applicant sought' to have granted was left insufficiently described and identified to authorize the issuance of the warrant provided for in § 3230 of the Code of 1895, and the granting of the land. Roberts v. Hilton & Dodge Lumber Co., 136 Ga. 473 (71 S. E. 786).
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
81 S.E. 198, 141 Ga. 388, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-mizell-brother-ga-1914.