Legal Opinion

Wood v. Hamilton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 7, 1964No. 40532PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Presiding Judge.

Under Georgia law the applicant for processioning makes out a prima facie case for the boundary line found by the processioners by filing, as in this case, their return and plat without further proof. Code § 85-1606; Castleberry v. Parrish, 135 Ga. 527, 528 (3) (69 SE 817); Philpot v. Wells, 69 Ga. App. 489 (2) (26 SE2d 155). The motion to dismiss was properly denied by the trial court.

For the same reason the court correctly denied ground 11 of the amended motion for new trial objecting to the admission in evidence of the processioners’ plat.

There is no merit in special…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Lefkoff v. SicroSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  2. Herndon v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1934
  3. Moore v. McAfeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
  4. Flanigan v. RevilleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  5. Perry v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Palmer v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1967
  2. Mitchell v. GayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  3. Mitchell v. GayCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  4. Butts v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  5. Vandiver v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1993

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API