Jones v. Trulock, 8184.

• Decision Date: 14 April 1931
• Docket Number: No. 8184.,8184.
• Parties: JONES et al. v. TRULOCK.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

172 Ga. 558

158 S.E. 326

JONES et al.

v.TRULOCK.

No. 8184.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 14, 1931.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Grady County; B. C. Gardner, Judge.

Suit by D. P. Trulock against P. A. Jones and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

Reversed.

Trulock filed a petition seeking an injunction against Cassell and Jones, alleging that he was the owner of described land, and that the defendants claimed the right for themselves and their families to go upon the land at any time they desired to hunt and fish, without petitioner's consent; that, by reason of such acts, petitioner is deprived of the exclusive right to use and enjoy said land and to lease the same to other parties for fishing and hunting; that the acts of the defendants annoy and harass the petitioner, and hamper him in renting the land. The defendants answered, admitting all the allegations of the petition except that portion denying that the defendants have the right to hunt and fish on the land. On the contrary, they asserted that their father-in-law formerly owned the land, sold the same to W. C. Lewis, reserving the hunting and fishing privilege during the life of said father-in-law or any member of his family; that as sons-in-law of the latter they have the right to hunt and fish, being included in the term "family."

On the trial it was admitted that the plaintiff held title to the land described, by virtue of a conveyance from W. C. Lewis, under whom the defendants claimed hunting and fishing rights on the land; that petitioner's title was acquired subsequently to the execution and recordation of the conveyance to Lewis in which hunting and fishing privileges were reserved to W. H. Shores and his family. Trulock, the petitioner, testified to the facts alleged in regard to hunting and fishing; that it was without his consent, to his hurt and injury; that such claims lessened the value of the lands; that he had sold the rights, and, if defendants continued to hunt and fish, such conduct would make it difficult for plaintiff to collect the value of the rights sold. He denied ever having consented to defendants fishing and hunting. The defendants introduced the following document: "Georgia, Grady County. This agreement witnesses that whereas W. H. Shores has this day sold and conveyed unto me all of lot of land No. 301 in the 18th district of originally Thomas now Grady County, said State, it is stipulated and agreed by me, the...