Greenway v. Sloan
| Decision Date | 13 July 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 18983,18983 |
| Citation | 211 Ga. 775,88 S.E.2d 366 |
| Parties | John H. GREENWAY v. H. H. SLOAN et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Dallum R. Jackson, and Lovejoy Boyer, Hawkinsville, for plaintiff in error.
Roger H. Lawson, Hawkinsville, for defendants in error. Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
In this litigation the plaintiff prayed for an injunction to prevent the defendants from cutting timber from a described 10-acre tract of land in Pulaski County. When the suit was filed, the defendant Sloan, admittedly, was cutting timber on the tract involved at the request and instance of the defendant, Mrs. West. The plaintiff and the defendant, Mrs. West, are coterminous landowners and neither disputes the title of the other to his or her tract as a whole. They hold title from a common grantor, and the true location of their dividing line is the real controversy between them. They agree that their lands are divided by an old road known as the 'County line--Elko public road.' The tract in dispute is adjacent to and south of State Highway No. 26, a new paved highway which runs about east and west. The plaintiff contends that 'County line--Elko public road' had the same location which State Highway No. 26 presently has. The defendants contend that 'County line--Elko public road' is an unpaved public road which intersects State Highway No. 26, and that the land in dispute is that part of land lot 24, in district 12, which is adjacent to and south of State Highway No. 26, and adjacent to and northwest of the intersecting public road or 'County line--Elko public road.' On the trial, the parties stipulated that, if the jury should find from the evidence that State Highway No. 26 and 'County line--Elko public road' are one and the same as to location, the verdict should be in favor of the plaintiff; but, on the other hand, if the jury should find from the evidence that the unpaved public road which intersects State Highway No. 26 and 'County line--Elko public road' are one and the same as to location, then the verdict should be in favor of the defendants. They agreed in open court that the trial judge need not submit any other question to the jury. Only that issue was submitted by the judge, and the jury found in favor of the defendants. The exception is to a judgment denying the plaintiff's amended motion for a new trial. Held:
1. Though conflicting, the evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict, and it has the approval of the trial judge. A verdict supported by any competent evidence which has the approval of the trial judge will not be disturbed by this court unless errors of law appear. Reed v. State, 195 Ga. 842(7), 25 S.E.2d 692.
2. In view of the stipulation and the agreement as set forth in the preceding statement of the case, there was no error in failing to give any of the charges about which complaint is made in the amended motion for a new trial; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Ayers, 21291
...evidence which has the approval of the trial judge will not be disturbed by this court unless errors of law appear. Greenway v. Sloan, 211 Ga. 775, 776(1), 88 S.E.2d 366; Reed v. State, 195 Ga. 842, 25 S.E.2d The exception is without merit. 2. The second exception is that the Court of Appea......
- Pardue v. Masters
-
Fields v. State
...on that point. Hence, the trial judge did not err in refusing to grant a new trial on this ground of the motion.' Greenway v. Sloan, 211 Ga. 775, 88 S.E.2d 366, 367. 3. Where, as in the instant case, the accused has been convicted, a new trial denied him, and that judgment affirmed, in orde......
-
Irvin v. Oliver
...755; Edmiston v. Whitney Land Co., 198 Ga. 546, 549, 32 S.E.2d 259; Palmer v. Hinson, 201 Ga. 654, 657, 40 S.E.2d 526; Greenway v. Sloan, 211 Ga. 775(2), 88 S.E.2d 366. Counsel representing the defendant in this court is not the counsel who represented him at the trial. This would not alter......