Martin v. Patileo

• Decision Date: 09 August 1906
• Parties: MARTIN . v. PATILEO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

55 S.E. 240

126 Ga. 436

MARTIN .

v.PATILEO.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Aug. 9, 1906.

1. Boundaries — Surveys—Judgment—Conclusiveness.

Where, after processioners have duly made out and certified a plat as required by law. a protest to their action is filed by an adjoining landowner, and the same is returned to the superior court, where a verdict is rendered sustaining the return of the processioners, and such return is made the judgment of the court, the judgment unappealed from is conclusive as against the protestant and his privies in title. Howland v. Brown, 92 Ga. 513, 17 S. E. 806.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 8, Cent. Dig. Boundaries, § 263.]

2. Trespass—Acts Constituting.

After such judgment, the true line between the coterminous proprietors is that marked by the processioners, and any invasion thereafteracross the line thus established upon the land of the adjacent owner by the protestant in the processioning proceeding would amount to a trespass.

3. Injunction—Grounds—Continuing Trespass.

If repeated acts of wrong are done or threatened, so as to make the trespass a continuous one, they may be repressed ill equity by injunction.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 27, Cent. Dig. Injunction, § 101.]

4. Same—Evidence.

There was no error in the allowance and rejection of the evidence, and the court did not abuse its discretion in granting the injunction.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Henry County; E. J. Reagan, Judge.

Action between M. F. Martin and J. W. Patillo. Patillo recovered judgment, and Martin brings error. Affirmed.

E. M. Smith and Brown & Brown, for plaintiff in error.

Geo. W. Bryan, for defendant in error.

EVANS, J. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except FISH, C. J., absent.