Case ID: ga_92/html/0513-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Howland v. Brown.
    Where processioners have duly made out and certified a plat as required by law, and no protest is filed to the same, such plat and the lines marked thereon are only prima facie correct; bnt where an adjoining land-owner files a protest to the action of the processioners, 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 is conclusive against the protestant and his privies in title.
    May 29, 1893.
    Ejectment. Before Thomas B. Felder, Jr., judge fro hac vice. Emanuel superior court. April term, 1892.
    Maggie Howland sued Sarah E. Brown for certain land. It appeared that the plaintiff claimed under a deed from Wiley Nasworthy, dated December 14, 1889. On December 14, 1886, upon the application of Sarah E. Brown, processioners, by virtue of an order of the ordinary, made a return showing certain lines as bounding the land of Sarah E. Brown, to which return Wiley Nasworthy filed a ^protest on several grounds. Upon this a verdict was rendered in the superior court in favor of the return of the processioners ; and thereupon judgment was entered, October 23, 1889, that the return of the processioners be made the judgment of the court, etc. It further appeared from the evidence, and was admitted, that the premises sued for lay between defendant’s land and the line which was disputed before the processioners but which was found by them as the true line between the land of defendant and that of Nasworthy. The court directed a verdict for defendant, which ruling was assigned as error.
   Judgment affirmed.

H. R. Daniel and Williams & Smith, for plaintiff in error.

F. H. Saeeold and Hines, Shubrick & Felder, contra.