Legal Opinion

Overstreet v. Dixon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 24, 1963No. 40060PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Judge.

The plaintiff in error had dual burdens in this case which were cast upon him, (1) as applicant for processioning and, (2) as protestant against the boundary line drawn anew by the processioners. The burden of establishing a prima facie case for the processioners1 return rested upon the plaintiff in error in his character as applicant. Woodcock v. Rayonier, Inc., 97 Ga. App. 133 (102 SE2d 93). The processioners’ return and the county surveyor’s plat are essential to a prima facie case, and, in the absence of any other evidence, would authorize a verdict sustaining the return.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Castleberry v. ParrishSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  2. Ellison v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1952
  3. Walker v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1933
  4. Georgia Talc Co. v. Cohutta Talc Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1913
  5. Penn v. Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1908

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Wisenbaker v. WarrenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
  2. Neal v. BrownCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
  3. Hall v. CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GEORGIA, INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2006
  4. Duke v. S & J MARBLECourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2006
  5. Sacks v. JordanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2004

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