Bradley v. Chattanooga Iron & Coal Co.

1. The processioning proceedings did not show on their face that they were void or were inadmissible in evidence on the ground that they were not accompanied by the application for processioning. Caverly v. Stovall, 134 Ga. 677 (68 S. E. 442). They recited that the Chattanooga Iron and Coal Company had applied for processioning, and that the processioners had proceeded under the application. Nor were the proceedings inadmissible, at the time when they were offered, on the ground that it was not a processioning of the land of the applicant, but of other people. On the face of the return it…