Thompson v. Hutchins, No. 17135
| Court | Supreme Court of Georgia |
| Writing for the Court | CANDLER; All the Justices concur, except HEAD |
| Citation | 60 S.E.2d 455,207 Ga. 226 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. HUTCHINS. |
| Docket Number | No. 17135 |
| Decision Date | 11 July 1950 |
Page 455
v.
HUTCHINS.
Rehearing Denied July 24, 1950.
Page 456
[207 Ga. 229] J. C. Murphy, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Howard, Tiller & Howard, J. V. Malcolm, Jr., all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
[207 Ga. 226] CANDLER, Justice.
Hutchins filed a suit against Thompson to enjoin him from interfering with the use of a certain private way. The petition in substance alleged: W. E. Shaw, in 1932, owned a boundary of land in DeKalb County, locally known as the 'Mrs. L. F. Shaw Estate.' During October of that year, Shaw had it surveyed by the county surveyor, laid off into tracts, and a plat or blueprint of it made. As platted, State Highway No. 12 is the north boundary line of tracts 1 [207 Ga. 227] and 2 of Shaw's subdivision, and tract 5 is south of and adjacent to them, but not contiguous to any road. The plat or blueprint delineated a road or passageway beginning at State Highway 12 and extending south across and along the west side of tract 2 to tract 5. The strip delineated on tract 2, parallel with the west line thereof, had been used by the owner continuously, for more than thirty years, as a private way, and as his only means of ingress from the highway to the land presently embraced in tract 5 and for egress therefrom to the highway. On April 1, 1944, Shaw caused the several tracts of his subdivision to be offered for sale at public auction. Copies of the plat or blueprint of it, as prepared by the county surveyor, were distributed among the bidders present and the auctioneer, in the presence of the owner, publicly announced to those present at the sale that the purchaser of tract 5 would have a right to use the existing road on the west side of tract 2, as delineated by the plat or blueprint, as a means of ingress and egress from and to State Highway 12. The plaintiff, from a copy of the plat or blueprint furnished him, purchased tract 5 of the subdivision, and W. E. Shaw executed and delivered to him a warranty deed for it on April 18, 1944. His deed from Shaw was duly recorded April 27, 1944; and it contained this recital: '* * * being tract No. 5 as shown by blueprint of survey of the subdivision of the estate of Mrs. L. F. Shaw made by M. F. Mable, County Surveyor, dated October, 1932, and said tract containing 77 acres according to said blueprint.' The defendant purchased tracts 1 and 2 of the same subdivision from W. E. Shaw on May 21, 1946. At the time of the defendant's purchase, he likewise was furnished with a copy of the same plat or blueprint which the plaintiff had at the time of his purchase, and his deed from Shaw recited: '* * * and being described as per plat made by M. F. Mable, Surveyor, October,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hames v. City of Marietta, No. 19241
...151 S.E. 349; Harris v. Powell, 177 Ga. 15, 169 S.E. 355; Westbrook v. Comer, 197 Ga. 433, 434(5), 29 S.E.2d 574; Thompson v. Hutchins, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 8. The petition, as amended, stated a cause of action, and it was error to dismiss the petition on general demurrer. Judgment revers......
-
Bowman v. Poole, No. 19924
...203 Ga. 206, 45 S.E.2d 415; Bowman v. Bowman, 205 Ga. 796, 55 S.E.2d 298; Bowman v. Bowman, 206 Ga. 262, 56 S.E.2d 497; Bowman v. Bowman, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 242; Bowman v. Bowman, 209 Ga. 200, 71 S.E.2d 84; Bowman v. Bowman, 210 Ga. 259, 78 S.E.2d 801, 347 U.S. 1017, 74 S.Ct. 865, 98 L.......
-
Owens Hardware Co. v. Walters, No. 18428
...Aspinwall v. Enterprise Development Co., 165 Ga. 83, 140 S.E. 67; Tietjen v. Meldrim, 169 Ga. 678, 151 S.E. 349; Thompson v. Hutchins, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 455. In Tietjen's case, supra (169 Ga. 678, 151 S.E. 359), this court held: 'As lots in this subdivision were sold, and the purchaser......
-
Mallard v. Zink, No. 3892
...therefore mean very slight. Deans v. Deans, 171 Ga. 664, 156 S.E. 691 (1931); Bowman v. Bowman, 205 Ga. 796, 55 S.E.2d 298 (1949), aff'd, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 242 "Very slight evidence of prejudice" is akin to holding an erroneous ruling, on a substantial right of a party, prejudicial err......
-
Hames v. City of Marietta, No. 19241
...151 S.E. 349; Harris v. Powell, 177 Ga. 15, 169 S.E. 355; Westbrook v. Comer, 197 Ga. 433, 434(5), 29 S.E.2d 574; Thompson v. Hutchins, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 8. The petition, as amended, stated a cause of action, and it was error to dismiss the petition on general demurrer. Judgment revers......
-
Bowman v. Poole, No. 19924
...203 Ga. 206, 45 S.E.2d 415; Bowman v. Bowman, 205 Ga. 796, 55 S.E.2d 298; Bowman v. Bowman, 206 Ga. 262, 56 S.E.2d 497; Bowman v. Bowman, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 242; Bowman v. Bowman, 209 Ga. 200, 71 S.E.2d 84; Bowman v. Bowman, 210 Ga. 259, 78 S.E.2d 801, 347 U.S. 1017, 74 S.Ct. 865, 98 L.......
-
Owens Hardware Co. v. Walters, No. 18428
...Aspinwall v. Enterprise Development Co., 165 Ga. 83, 140 S.E. 67; Tietjen v. Meldrim, 169 Ga. 678, 151 S.E. 349; Thompson v. Hutchins, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 455. In Tietjen's case, supra (169 Ga. 678, 151 S.E. 359), this court held: 'As lots in this subdivision were sold, and the purchaser......
-
Mallard v. Zink, No. 3892
...therefore mean very slight. Deans v. Deans, 171 Ga. 664, 156 S.E. 691 (1931); Bowman v. Bowman, 205 Ga. 796, 55 S.E.2d 298 (1949), aff'd, 207 Ga. 226, 60 S.E.2d 242 "Very slight evidence of prejudice" is akin to holding an erroneous ruling, on a substantial right of a party, prejudicial err......