Legal Opinion

Hickox v. Griffin

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 16, 1949No. 16715PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Head, Justice.

The plaintiff’s deed does not describe his property by courses and distances, but only names the adjoining landowners, and describes his property as “bounded on the west by the lands of Floyd Lee and lands of Harvey Griffin,” the defendants. The plaintiff, in order to recover the lands claimed by him, would therefore be required to show that the lands for which he sued were not “the lands” of the defendants.

Counsel for the plaintiff insist in their brief that the evidence demanded a finding for the plaintiff. This contention is not sustained by the record. The plaintiff failed…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Osteen v. WynnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  2. Farr v. WoolfolkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  3. Park & Iverson v. Piedmont & Arlington Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1874
  4. Bradley v. SheltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
  5. Gornto v. WilsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Amear v. HallCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  2. Parsons v. GrantCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
  3. Davis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1968
  4. Collins v. BurchfieldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
  5. Hethcock v. PadgettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1961

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