Waller v. Drew

Supreme Court of Georgia

Waller v. Drew

158 S.E. 586, 172 Ga. 694, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 179

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 12, 1931

DocketNo. 8024

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 586 (Waller v. Drew) 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

Waller v. Drew, 158 S.E. 586, 172 Ga. 694, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 179 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Grounds 2, 3, and 4 of the amendment to the motion for new trial do not sufficiently raise any question for decision by the court.

2. Ground 4 of the amendment to the motion for new trial complains that the court erred in not submitting to the jury the question of seven years possession by movant, under color of title, “which movant contends was proven by uncontradicted testimony that movant had been in actual adverse possession for more than seven years prior to the commencement of the action.” Prescriptive title is not involved in the case, for the reason that the record shows that the plaintiff in error acquired deed to the land in controversy on July 20, 1922, and the present suit was filed March 29, 1929, less than seven years after the plaintiff in error had acquired his deed.

3. Under the evidence the court directed the only verdict which could have been legally rendered, and there was no error in so doing.

4. The court did not err in refusing the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. J. E. D. Shipp and Bradley Hogg, for plaintiff in error. Cleveland Reese and J, A, Hixon, contra.

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

Hill, J.

1. Grounds 2, 3, and 4 of the amendment to the motion for new trial do not sufficiently raise any question for decision by the court.

2. Ground 4 of the amendment to the motion for new trial complains that the court erred in not submitting to the jury the question of seven years possession by movant, under color of title, “which movant contends was proven by uncontradicted testimony that movant had been in actual adverse possession for more than seven years prior to the commencement of the action.” Prescriptive title is not involved in the case, for the reason that the record shows that the plaintiff in error acquired deed to the land in controversy on July 20, 1922, and the present suit was filed March 29, 1929, less than seven years after the plaintiff in error had acquired his deed.

3. Under the evidence the court directed the only verdict which could have been legally rendered, and there was no error in so doing.

4. The court did not err in refusing the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. J. E. D. Shipp and Bradley Hogg, for plaintiff in error. Cleveland Reese and J, A, Hixon, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 586, 172 Ga. 694, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waller-v-drew-ga-1931.