Legal Opinion

Watkins v. Pepperton Cotton Mills

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 21, 1926No. 5150PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.

The first five headnotes do not require elaboration.

Movant specifies as error and ground for a new trial the following charge of the court: “I charge you, on the subject of prescriptive easement, that if you believe from the preponderance of evidence in the case that the defendant located and constructed this sewer complained of, with the knowledge and consent of Joel B. Watkins, owner of the land, and that he was a stockholder, director, and officer of the defendant company at the time, and that this sewer has emptied its contents into the stream flowing into the waters of the pond…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Inhabitants of Stoughton v. BakerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
  2. Bonner v. WelbornSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
  3. Phinizy v. City Council of AugustaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1872
  4. Columbus Power Co. v. City Mills Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  5. Williams v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Goble v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  2. Roughton v. THIELE KAOLIN COMPANYSupreme Court of Georgia · 1953
  3. Hogan v. CowartSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  4. Loughridge v. City of DaltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1918
  5. Anneberg v. KurtzSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944

1 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