Gunnin v. Carlile
| Decision Date | 07 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | 14517. |
| Citation | 25 S.E.2d 652,195 Ga. 861 |
| Parties | GUNNIN v. CARLILE. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Where a judgment is claimed as an estoppel, the burden is upon the party relying thereon to show that the particular matter in controversy was necessarily or actually determined in his favor in the former litigation; and if it appears from the record introduced in support of such claim that several issues were involved in the previous litigation, and the verdict and judgment therein do not clearly show that the particular issue was then decided, before such claim can be sustained the uncertainty must be removed by extrinsic evidence showing that the issue was then decided in favor of the party relying upon such adjudication or estoppel.
2. Under the foregoing principle as applied to the instant suit to enjoin the defendant from trespassing upon a described tract of land to which the plaintiff claimed title, the evidence did not demand a finding for the plaintiff on the theory that the issue as to title had been determined in her favor in former litigation, nor was a verdict for her otherwise demanded by the evidence. The court erred in directing the verdict for the plaintiff.
This case involves a dispute regarding a land line, and a further contention by the plaintiff that the same controversy was adjudicated in her favor in a former suit between the parties.
In June, 1942, Mrs. R. C. Carlile filed the present suit against J. M. Gunnin, to enjoin him from trespassing upon a described tract of land to which she claimed title, and from otherwise interfering with her use and occupancy of the same as owner. The plaintiff made in her petition substantially the following case: She is the owner of lot of land No. 561 in the 16th district of Cobb County, and has been in the quiet and legal possession of same under a deed for more than seven years. When her husband, under whom she claims, bought said property, there was an old road leading across the northern part of said lot, and he purchased all of said property up to the same roadway. This road was the recognized north line of said lot, and it was the agreed line between this lot and lot No. 520 adjoining it on the north, the last-mentioned lot being claimed by the defendant. The plaintiff's husband had possession up to this line from the time of his purchase more than thirty years ago, until his death, and after his death the plaintiff continued in the uninterrupted use and enjoyment of said property until December 9, 1931.
The plaintiff further alleged that on the last-mentioned date, the defendant Gunnin filed a suit against her, contending that the original line dividing the two lots was some distance south of the old road, and trying by said suit to take possession of a strip south of said road; that this suit resulted in favor of this plaintiff defendant in the former case; and that she has continued in possession until the present time.
The defendant filed an answer in which he put in issue the material allegations of the petition, and alleged title in himself to the disputed tract, by adverse possession under color of title for more than forty years. He further alleged in effect that even since the former verdict and judgment he has continued in uninterrupted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cmty. State Bank v. Strong
...to forbid inquiry into 1 or 3, or both. This would distort the wholesome policy behind collateral estoppel.”); Gunnin v. Carlile, 195 Ga. 861, 25 S.E.2d 652, 653–54 (1943) (holding that where defendant answered suit by both asserting title to land and denying allegations as to timber remova......
-
Smith v. Wood, 42603
...Ga. 408, 191 S.E. 691; Sumner v. Sumner, 186 Ga. 390, 197 S.E. 833; Phillips v. Hightower, 190 Ga. 785, 10 S.E.2d 854; Gunnin v. Carlile, 195 Ga. 861, 25 S.E.2d 652; Spence v. Erwin, 200 Ga. 672, 38 S.E.2d 394; Price v. Price, 205 Ga. 623, 54 S.E.2d 578; Capps v. Toccoa Falls Light & Power ......
-
Martin v. Patton
...generally Payne v. Terhune, 212 Ga. 169, 170, 91 S.E.2d 348 (1956); Heard v. Helms, 210 Ga. 669, 82 S.E.2d 129 (1954); Gunnin v. Carlile, 195 Ga. 861, 25 S.E.2d 652 (1943); see also Nelms v. Dorsey, 168 Ga.App. 452, 309 S.E.2d 426 Storey testified that he held acreage to be of paramount imp......
-
Glen Oak, Inc. v. Henderson
...codifies the principle of equitable set-off, which provides an exception to the strictures of legal set-off.4 E.g., Gunnin v. Carlile, 195 Ga. 861(1), 25 S.E.2d 652 (1943), i.e., the defense must be sustained by "clear proof." Uddyback v. George, 223 Ga. 311, 312, 154 S.E.2d 577 (1967).5 Se......