Stewart v. Smith

Supreme Court of Georgia

Stewart v. Smith

69 S.E. 540, 135 Ga. 390, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 548

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedNovember 18, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 S.E. 540 (Stewart v. Smith) 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

Stewart v. Smith, 69 S.E. 540, 135 Ga. 390, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 548 (Ga. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where, upon the trial of the issue formed by a protest to • the return of procéssioners who marked a disputed land-line, one contention was that the line marked by the procéssioners was fixed by adverse possession under the Civil Code, § 3248, which declares that “where actual possession has been had, under .a claim of right, for more than seven years, such claim shall be respected, and the lines so marked as not to interfere with such possession,” there was no error in refusing to charge what constitutes constructive possession of land, in connection with the law of prescription, as defined by the Civil Code, § 3586.

2. When considered in connection with the entire charge, none of the excerpts therefrom on which errors were assigned were subject to the criticisms made upon them, so as to require a new trial.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. Where, upon the trial of the issue formed by a protest to • the return of procéssioners who marked a disputed land-line, one contention was that the line marked by the procéssioners was fixed by adverse possession under the Civil Code, § 3248, which declares that “where actual possession has been had, under .a claim of right, for more than seven years, such claim shall be respected, and the lines so marked as not to interfere with such possession,” there was no error in refusing to charge what constitutes constructive possession of land, in connection with the law of prescription, as defined by the Civil Code, § 3586.

2. When considered in connection with the entire charge, none of the excerpts therefrom on which errors were assigned were subject to the criticisms made upon them, so as to require a new trial.

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.E. 540, 135 Ga. 390, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-smith-ga-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack