Davis v. Wight
| Decision Date | 14 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 17348,17348 |
| Citation | 207 Ga. 590,63 S.E.2d 405 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. WIGHT. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Grant, Wiggins, Grizzard & Smith and Wm. A. Grant, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Lokey & Bowden and John L. Westmoreland, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
This is the second appearance of this litigation in the Supreme Court. It is a suit in ejectment for the recovery of a small triangular-shaped parcel of land in Fulton County, Georgia, with no prayer for mesne profits. When it was here before, in Wight v. Davis, 202 Ga. 239, 42 S.E.2d 641, we held, under the pleadings as they then stood and the proof submitted in support thereof, that the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant (Mrs. Davis); and that a verdict for the plaintiff (Mrs. Wight) was demanded by the evidence. Since then the defendant has, in several respects, materially amended her answer, has withdrawn and dismissed her cross-action, and on another trial the court has directed a verdict for the plaintiff (Mrs. Wight). To the direction of that verdict, Mrs. Davis excepted and by direct bill of exceptions brought the case to this court again for review. Held:
1. Both as to the pleadings and the evidence, the present case is substantially different from what it was when here before. This being true, our former ruling is not controlling as the law of the case. See Sanderlin v. Sanderlin, 27 Ga. 334; Dixon v. Federal Farm Mortgage Corp., 187 Ga. 660, 1 S.E.2d 732; Smoot v. Alexander, 192 Ga. 684, 16 S.E.2d 544; Rackley v. Miller, 200 Ga. 717, 38 S.E.2d 404; Rivers v. Brown, 200 Ga. 49, 52, 36 S.E.2d 429, and the cases there cited.
2. 'Where there is no conflict in the evidence, and that introduced, with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict, the court may direct the jury to find for the party entitled thereto.' Code, § 110-104. Stated differently, it is error to direct a verdict, except where there is no conflict in the evidence introduced as to the material facts, and the evidence introduced together with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom demands a particular verdict. Hughes v. Cobb, 195 Ga. 213, 230, 23 S.E.2d 701; Yablon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 200 Ga. 693, 703, 38 S.E.2d 534. 'And a verdict should not be directed unless there is no issue of fact, or unless the proved facts, viewed from every possible legal point of view, can sustain no other finding than that directed.' Norris v. Coffee, 206 Ga. 759, 58 S.E.2d 812, 813.
3. The parties to this litigation are coterminous landowners, and the true location of the dividing line between their adjacent lands is the real controversy between them. Each claims that the small triangular-shaped parcel of land in dispute is a part of her respective boundary. At the trial now under review, the plaintiff introduced both oral and documentary evidence; the defendant offered none. Among the documents introduced by the plaintiff were certain plats prepared by L. H. Fitzpatrick and E. L. Boggus from surveys they separately made of the tracts; and those plats show that the plaintiff's land and the defendant's land are separate and distinct tracts, with no overlapping on each other, and that the land in dispute is a part of Mrs. Wight's tract....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wall v. Citizens & Southern Bank of Houston County, 58909
...reviewed on the prior appeal. Therefore, the quoted language from the decision on that appeal is not res judicata. Davis v. Wight, 207 Ga. 590(1), 63 S.E.2d 405; Williams v. Rentz Banking Co., 114 Ga.App. 778, 781-782, 152 S.E.2d 825. Accordingly, an issue of material fact remains as to whe......
-
Pritchett v. Anding
...legal point of view, can sustain no other finding than that directed.' Norris v. Coffee, 206 Ga. 759 (58 SE2d 812)." Davis v. Wight, 207 Ga. 590(2), 63 S.E.2d 405. Here, several issues of fact exist. It is for the jury to decide whether the defendant concealed the wet weather stream underne......
-
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Proudfoot
...on prior review, the former ruling is not the law of the case. Sams v. McDonald, 119 Ga.App. 547(2), 167 S.E.2d 668; Davis v. Wight, 207 Ga. 590(1), 63 S.E.2d 405. Therefore the issue of estoppel for failure to serve a reservation rights notice is removed from the case and the only question......
-
Reese v. Ideal Realty Co., 48500
...trial differs from that offered on the summary judgment motion. Moorman v. Williams, 107 Ga.App. 640(2), 131 S.E.2d 238; Davis v. Wight, 207 Ga. 590(1), 63 S.E.2d 405. On the trial of this case there was undisputed evidence that the witnesses went to Mrs. Reese with a certified check and te......