Strickland v. Padgett

Supreme Court of Georgia

Strickland v. Padgett

71 S.E.2d 545, 209 Ga. 261

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1952

DocketNo. 17899

StatusPublished

This text of 71 S.E.2d 545 (Strickland v. Padgett) 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

Strickland v. Padgett, 71 S.E.2d 545, 209 Ga. 261 (Ga. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Where, as here, the amended petition, compromising some eighteen pages, sought to enjoin an administrator’s sale of land under an order of the ordinary, solely because the order and citation described a boundary of the land as being bounded on the south by lands of the petitioner, instead of the original land lot line, and stated that there were 440 acres, more or less, instead of 326 acres, more or less — the alleged threatened injury being that such description would confuse the location of the dividing line, thereby allowing the defendant purchaser to encroach upon the petitioner’s land to make up the difference in acreage and create a cloud on his title — no cause of action is alleged, and the exception here to the judgment dismissing the amended petition on demurrer is without merit. See Code, § 113-1714; Hanesley v. Bagley, 109 Ga. 346 (34 S. E. 584); Porter v. LaGrange Bank &c. Co., 187 Ga. 528 (1 S. E. 2d, 441).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P.J., not participating.

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

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Where, as here, the amended petition, compromising some eighteen pages, sought to enjoin an administrator’s sale of land under an order of the ordinary, solely because the order and citation described a boundary of the land as being bounded on the south by lands of the petitioner, instead of the original land lot line, and stated that there were 440 acres, more or less, instead of 326 acres, more or less — the alleged threatened injury being that such description would confuse the location of the dividing line, thereby allowing the defendant purchaser to encroach upon the petitioner’s land to make up the difference in acreage and create a cloud on his title — no cause of action is alleged, and the exception here to the judgment dismissing the amended petition on demurrer is without merit. See Code, § 113-1714; Hanesley v. Bagley, 109 Ga. 346 (34 S. E. 584); Porter v. LaGrange Bank &c. Co., 187 Ga. 528 (1 S. E. 2d, 441).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Atkinson, P.J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E.2d 545, 209 Ga. 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strickland-v-padgett-ga-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack