Ga. R. & Banking Co v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 19 July 1901 |
| Citation | 39 S.E. 299,113 Ga. 897 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | GEORGIA R. & BANKING CO. v. GARDNER. |
ADVERSE POSSESSION—TRESPASS—ANSWER-AMENDMENT.
1. The verdict was sustained by the testimony. The defendant in error having gone into possession of the land in dispute under a deed, inclosed it by a fence, and held the undisturbed possession of it for more than 20 years, he had a complete prescriptive title, and there fore the right to resist the trespass of the employes of the railroad company upon the land thus held and occupied.
2. A defendant may amend an answer by withdrawing an admission therein made, and after so doing may introduce testimony tending to support the allegations of such answer as it stands after the amendment has been allowed.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Richmond county; E. L. Brinson, Judge.
Action by the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company against M. G. S. Gardner. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Jos. B. & Bryan Cumming, for plaintiff in error.
Wm. H. Fleming, for defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Board of Bond Trustees of Special Road and Bridge Dist. No. 1 of Alachua County
... ... of way as private parties are to keep them off their private ... premises. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Gardner, ... 113 Ga. 897, 39 S.E. 299; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v ... Wakefield, 173 Ill. 564, 50 N.E. 1022; Pittsburgh, ... C., C. & St ... ...
-
Dulin v. Ohio River R. Co.
... ... For this view there is ... also much authority. Some of the cases so holding are the ... following, viz.: Georgia R., etc., Co. v. Gardner, ... 113 Ga. 897, 39 S.E. 299; Illinois, etc., R. Co. v ... Wakefield, 173 Ill. 564, 50 N.E. 1002; Pittsburgh, ... etc., R. Co. v. Jellison, 42 ... ...
-
Dulin v. Ohio River R.R. Co.
...private lands. For this view there is also much authority. Some of the cases so holding are the following, viz.: Georgia R. etc. Co. v. Gardner, 113 Ga. 897, 39 S. E. 299; Illinois etc. R. Co. v. Wakefield, 173 Ill. 564, 50 N. E. 1002; Pittsburg etc. R. Co. v. Jellison, 42 Ind. App. 628, 86......
-
Alabama Midland Ry. Co. v. Guilford
...given the defendant an opportunity to explain and disprove them. See Medicine Co. v. Gibbs, 108 Ga. 138, 33 S.E. 945. In Banking Co. v. Gardner, 113 Ga. 897, 39 S.E. 299, the facts are not reported; but we have examined the and find that the prescribed affidavit was not made, but that the j......