Case ID: ga_118/html/0253-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Eish, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MOORE et al. v. LUNCEFORD.
    There was no error of law complained of. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to grant a new trial will not-he controlled.
    Submitted May 6,
    —Decided June 30, 1903.
    Complaint for land. Before Judge Holden. Taliaferro superior court. January 26, 1903.
    
      Hawes Cloud and Colley & Sims, for'plaintiffs in error.
    
      Samuel H. Sibley, contra.
   Eish, J.

The plaintiff and the predecessor in title of defendants each bought a tract of land at an administrator’s sale. The tracts adjoined each other. The present controversy is as to the dividing line between the two tracts. The jury sustained the contention of the plaintiff. The evidence was of such a character as to. authorize a finding for either party. No error of law is complained of. The presiding judge is satisfied with the verdict, and we will ¡not reverse his judgment refusing to grant a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

By five Justices.