Stringer v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint for land. Before Judge Jones. Hall superior court. September 9, 1912.
1Opinion of the CourtFish, C. J.
1. In an action for the recovery of land, the premises should be described with such definiteness that in the event of the recovery by the plaintiff the sheriff could execute the writ of possession from the description given. Williams v. Perry, 136 Ga. 453 (71 S. E. 886); Hunter v. Bowen, 137 Ga. 258 (73 S. E. 380). This rule, however, does not mean that the description may not depend for its definiteness upon some parol fact. Powell on Actions for Land, § 25; Adams on Ejectment, 24.
2. In an action for the recovery, of land the description of the premises sued for was as follows: “Being lot…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Luquire v. LeeSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Williams v. PerrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Hunter v. BowenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Venable v. BurtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
3Cited by13 opinions
- Jackson v. SandersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1945
- Gould v. GouldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
- Harbin v. HuntSupreme Court of Georgia · 1921
- Scoville v. LamarSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
- Martin v. Oakhurst Development Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1944
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.