Zeagler v. Willis

92 S.E.2d 108, 212 Ga. 286, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 341
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 12, 1956
Docket19243
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 92 S.E.2d 108 (Zeagler v. Willis) 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
Zeagler v. Willis, 92 S.E.2d 108, 212 Ga. 286, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 341 (Ga. 1956).

Opinion

Hawkins, Justice.

If, as contended by the plaintiff, the deeds by his predecessors in title to the railway company did not convey title, but conveyed only a right-of-way or easement for railroad purposes to the 200-foot strip of land therein described, and such right-of-way has, upon its abandonment by the railway company, reverted to him as successor in title to the railway company’s grantors, he has an adequate remedy at law by action in ejectment to recover the land conveyed by the railway company to the defendant Willis; whereas, if the conveyances by the plaintiff’s predecessors in title conveyed fee-simple title to the railway company to the land involved, the defendant grantee of the railway company would be entitled to prevail, but the present petition, while praying for process, contains no prayer that the plaintiff recover the property, or that title thereto be decreed in him. The plaintiff’s petition, therefore, fails to show or allege that he is without an adequate remedy at law or in equity, and shows that whatever rights the parties may have are accrued already, and no facts or circumstances are alleged to show any necessity for a determination of any dispute to guide and protect the petitioner from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the propriety of some future act or conduct which is properly incident to his alleged right, and which future action without such direction might reasonably jeopardize his interest. Accordingly, the trial judge properly sustained the defendant’s general demurrer to the petition, since it sets forth no ground for a declaration of rights under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Sumner v. Davis, 211 Ga. 702 (88 S. E. 2d 392); Lewis v. Lewis, 212 Ga. 168; Brown v. Cobb County, 212 Ga. 172.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Related

Price v. Georgia Industrial Realty Co.
207 S.E.2d 556 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)
Dixie Fireworks Co. v. McArthur
130 S.E.2d 731 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1963)
Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Glens Falls Insurance
114 S.E.2d 389 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
Rowan v. Herring
105 S.E.2d 29 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
McCallum v. Quarles
104 S.E.2d 105 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
State of Georgia v. Hospital Authority
102 S.E.2d 543 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1958)
Liner v. City of Rossville
94 S.E.2d 862 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 S.E.2d 108, 212 Ga. 286, 1956 Ga. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeagler-v-willis-ga-1956.