Brantley v. Davis

• Decision Date: 10 February 1915
• Docket Number: 158.
• Citation: 84 S.E. 434,143 Ga. 73
• Parties: BRANTLEY v. DAVIS ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

84 S.E. 434

143 Ga. 73

BRANTLEY v. DAVIS ET AL.

No. 158.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 10, 1915

Syllabus by the Court.

On the trial of an issue formed by the filing of a protest to the return of processioners, finding a certain land line to be the true line between certain lots of land, it was error for the court to instruct the jury: "So, in your investigations, if you should find, as a matter of fact, from the evidence, and you are to be controlled by the evidence if you should find that the corner known and testified about as the Davis corner, then that would be, under the law, the original corner for that lot of land, whether it is the same post or not, if it was in the same place, or approximately the same place, as the original corner post, that would be the true corner of the lot of land, and then the true line between these lots would run due east and west between these two lots, whether the original line had ever been blazed out or not, that would make no difference, if that is the true corner, the true line would be a straight line running east and west from that corner. If you find that to be the true corner, then the true line would be a line running due east with such magnetic variations as surveyors allow from that corner." The language of the charge, that "if it was in the same place, or approximately the same place, as the original corner post, that would be the true corner of the lot of land," etc., should not have been given.

On the trial of such an issue, the following testimony was objectionable, as being hearsay, and should have been excluded: "There was a line put there way back yonder by Mr. Youmans, the father of Mr. Youmans who was on the stand. I was not living in the county at that time. They said he couldn't find the original line, and ran this one. I do not know as to whether the talk about that was general or restricted. They were just talking about the line put there by Mr. Youmans. There was very little talk about it so far as I know."

The testimony objected to in the ninth and tenth grounds of the amended motion was inadmissible, and should have been excluded, on objection of the plaintiff, on the ground that it had reference to transactions occurring subsequently to the filing of the petition for processioning.

There being no connection shown between A. P. Brantley, the plaintiff, and the Brantley Company, by which the latter could bind the former, the...