Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Bale

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided June 15, 1932No. 9041PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, J.

1. Under the allegations of the petition the defendant Mitchell is a mere trespasser, claiming no rights or interests in the property. Occupying that status he can not, as against this suit, set up want of title in the plaintiffs. Justice v. Aikin, 104 Ga. 714 (30 S. E. 941). Moreover, as against a general demurrer, the allegation that plaintiffs “are joint owners” is a sufficient allegation as to title. Hardin v. Chattanooga So. R. Co., 113 Ga. 357, 359 (38 S. E. 839). “Actual possession will support an action of trespass against a wrong-doer. If nothing appears to the contrary, such actual…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
  2. Hardin v. Chattanooga Southern RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  3. Justice v. AikinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
  4. Bertha Mineral Co. v. SimpsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  5. Griner v. CulpepperSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. EvansSupreme Court of Georgia · 1952
  2. Oliver v. IrvinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1964
  3. Keen v. ThomasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API