Hall v. Browning
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, J.
1. The duty of proeessioners appointed under authority of the Code, § 85-1605, is to survey and mark anew established lines as they actually exist, and not as they ought to have-been laid out originally. Amos v. Parker, 88 Ga. 754 (16 S. E. 200); Wheeler v. Thomas, 139 Ga. 598 (77 S. E. 817); Pearre v. Wilkinson, 181 Ga. 619 (183 S. E. 626); Cosby v. Reid, 21 Ga. App. 604 (94 S. E. 824); Aderhold v. Lambert, 67 Ga. App. 166 (19 S. E. 2d, 538).
2. In processioning and marking anew established lines, the pro 'Cessioners are bound by the rules which the law prescribes. These general principles…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Amos v. ParkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
- Cosby v. ReidCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1918
- Wheeler v. ThomasSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Reynolds v. KinseyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Aderhold v. LambertCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1942
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Goodson v. PopeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Bostick v. YaughnCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
- Georgia Marble Company v. VoylesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
- Purcell v. C. Goldstein & Sons, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
- Rogers v. BeaversCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.