Case Title: Bridges v. Brackett

Citation: 208 Ga. 774, 69 S.E.2d 745

Docket Number: 

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1952-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
208 Ga. 774 (1952) 69 S.E.2d 745 BRIDGES v. BRACKETT et al. 17758. Supreme Court of Georgia. Argued February 11, 1952. Decided March 10, 1952. E. C. Brannon and B. Frank Whelchel, for plaintiff. Emory F. Robinson and Wheeler, Robinson & Thurmond, for defendants. ALMAND, Justice. 1. The order of the court of April 18, 1950., disallowing the amendment offered by the plaintiff, being unexcepted to, became the law of the case, and the complaint that the court erred in disallowing the amendment did not constitute a meritorious ground to set aside the judgment of nonsuit and reinstate the case. Nor does the ground that the court erred in refusing to admit in evidence the deeds referred to in the disallowed amendment constitute a meritorious ground to reinstate the case. See, in this connection, Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872 (7) (43 S. E. 280); Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Hutchins & Jenkins, 119 Ga. 504 (46 S. E. 659); Palmer v. Jackson, 188 Ga. 336 (4 S. E. 2d, 28). 2. It appearing without dispute from the evidence introduced by the plaintiff that the only use by him of the 28-acre tract of land in question was to cut firewood and put out fires at different times, and that there had never been a house on the tract, nor had the same ever been cultivated or enclosed, such evidence was insufficient to show actual adverse possession on his part. Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182 (71 Am. D. 198); Keller v. Dillon, 26 Ga. 701; Joiner v. Borders, 32 Ga. 239; McCook v. Crawford, 114 Ga. 337 (2) (40 S. E. 225); Shahan v. Watkins, 194 Ga. 164 (3) (21 S. E. 2d, 58). Since the sole claim of the plaintiff that he had title to the 28-acre tract was based on his claim of actual adverse possession for more than 20 years, and the evidence was entirely insufficient to support such claim, it was not error for the court to grant a nonsuit, and there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to reinstate the case. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.