Case ID: ga_113/html/0981-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Little, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

COWDERY v. JOHNSON.
    ‘The evidence did not sufficiently show any particular number of front feet or inches of land that the plaintiff was entitled to recover; hence, a verdict finding for him “ the piece of land in dispute ” can not legally stand, when it appears that the land sought to he recovered was described as one and eight tenths of a foot, of a particular lot fronting on a named street and running hack to an alley.
    Argued June 4,
    Decided July 20, 1901.
    ' Complaint for land. Before Judge Lumpkin. Eulton superior •court. January 29, 1901. ■
    
      Rosser & Garter and U. N. Randolph, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Westmoreland Brothers, contra.
   Little, J.

This was an action for the recovery of a strip of land of the uniform width of one and eight tenths .feet along the boundary line between two lots in the city of Atlanta. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the piece of land in •dispute. The evidence fails to show with any definiteness the width of this strip of land, certainly as to one end of it. This being true, .a .finding for the plaintiff, as above set out, is contrary to the evidence and without evidence to support it. The trial judge, therefore, erred in refusing to set the verdict aside and grant to defendant a new trial;

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.