Smith v. Pyles

Supreme Court of Georgia

Smith v. Pyles

78 S.E.2d 5, 210 Ga. 86, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 482

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedOctober 13, 1953

Docket18352

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 78 S.E.2d 5 (Smith v. Pyles) 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

Smith v. Pyles, 78 S.E.2d 5, 210 Ga. 86, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 482 (Ga. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Almand, Justice.

Walter I. Smith, an incompetent, by and through his next friend, Carrie Lou Smith, brought an action in ejectment against John P. Pyles and Ralph Pyles, to recover a certain tract of land particularly described in the petition. The plaintiff relied for recovery solely upon his actual adverse possession of the described tract for more than twenty years. At the conclusion of evidence introduced by the plaintiff and the defendants, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial upon the general grounds only, no error being assigned on the direction of the verdict. The motion being denied, the case is here on a bill of exceptions assigning error on said order. Held:

The evidence, construed most strongly in favor of the plaintiff, failed to show that he had ever been in possession of the whole tract of land sued for. It showed that he went into possession, at different times, of a small part of the described tract, but that he failed to identify the part of which he was in possession and distinguish it from that of which he was not, and the verdict in favor of the defendants, regardless of the evidence in support of their title, was demanded by the evidence. Whitehead v. Pitts, 127 Ga. 774 (1) (56 S. E. 1004). It was not error to deny the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Almand, Justice.

Walter I. Smith, an incompetent, by and through his next friend, Carrie Lou Smith, brought an action in ejectment against John P. Pyles and Ralph Pyles, to recover a certain tract of land particularly described in the petition. The plaintiff relied for recovery solely upon his actual adverse possession of the described tract for more than twenty years. At the conclusion of evidence introduced by the plaintiff and the defendants, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff filed a motion for new trial upon the general grounds only, no error being assigned on the direction of the verdict. The motion being denied, the case is here on a bill of exceptions assigning error on said order. Held:

The evidence, construed most strongly in favor of the plaintiff, failed to show that he had ever been in possession of the whole tract of land sued for. It showed that he went into possession, at different times, of a small part of the described tract, but that he failed to identify the part of which he was in possession and distinguish it from that of which he was not, and the verdict in favor of the defendants, regardless of the evidence in support of their title, was demanded by the evidence. Whitehead v. Pitts, 127 Ga. 774 (1) (56 S. E. 1004). It was not error to deny the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E.2d 5, 210 Ga. 86, 1953 Ga. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-pyles-ga-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack