Legal Opinion

Kauffman v. Deese

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 14, 1949No. 16684PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Head, Justice.

1. The sufficiency of the description of premises sought to be recovered by an action in ejectment may be tested by general demurrer. Scoville v. Lamar, 149 Ga. 333 (100 S. E. 96); Barley v. Starr, 150 Ga. 89 (102 S. E. 819); Hamil v. Gormley, 188 Ga. 585, 586 (4 S. E. 2d, 471).

No. 16684. September 14, 1949. Rehearing denied October 13, 1949. Pierce Brothers, for plaintiff. Boiler & Yow and John F. Hardin, for defendant.

2. In an action to recover land, the description of the property must be sufficiently definite to enable the sheriff to execute a writ of possession based on the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Cochran v. GrooverSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
  2. Deaton v. SwansonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  3. Mentone Hotel & Realty Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Georgia · 1925
  4. Darley v. StarrSupreme Court of Georgia · 1920
  5. Harwell v. FosterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1895

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Harris v. AbneySupreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  2. James A. Bowdoin, B. Buford Malone, Jr., and United States of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1960
  3. Vinson v. CannonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
  4. Harry v. SCENIC HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965
  5. McDilda v. LankfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1958

3 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