Case Name: SHIVER v. HILL et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1918-12-11
Citations: 148 Ga. 616
Docket Number: No. 1002
Parties: SHIVER v. HILL et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur, except
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 616–620

Head Matter:
SHIVER v. HILL et al.
1. In submitting the issue between coterminous landowners as to the boundary line between them, where it was alleged that a parol agreement had been previously made, the court instructed the jury that such a parol agreement operates to establish a line where the boundary line between the coterminous proprietors is “unascertained, unsettled, and not agreed to between the parties, and is disputed.” Error is assigned on the ground that the court used the conjunctive “and” instead of the disjunctive “or” before the word “disputed,” and that this amounted to a ruling that a parol agreement, under such circumstances, was not binding unless the line was disputed, notwithstanding it may have been unascertained or unsettled and not agreed to between the parties. Held, that such instruction was not error requiring the grant of a new trial. George, J., dissents.
2. The ground of the motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is not such as to require a reversal of the judgment. Hensley V. McHan, 135 da. 834 (70 S. E. 654).
3. The evidence authorized the verdict.
No. 1002.
December 11, 1918.
Complaint for land. Before Judge Thomas. Brooks superior court. May 16, 1918.
H. I. and A. E. Hill sued Shiver in ejectment for a narrow strip of land running along the boundary line between two lots of land. One of Shiver’s defenses was, that both of the lots had formerly been owned by one Walker, who was the common grantor of plaintiff and defendant; that Shiver purchased lot No. 271 prior to the purchase by plaintiff of lot 236; that at the time of the purchase by Shiver he and Walker entered into a parol agreement as to the true line, which was indefinite and not settled; and that a survey was made according to the agreement, and the parties went into possession of their respective lands up to the agreed line. The jury found for the plaintiffs, and the defendant filed a motion for new trial on statutory and special grounds. One ground is based upon newly discovered evidence, which consisted of a new survey made after the trial. Another complains of a charge to the jury, as follows: “The court further instructs you that there is another principle of law which is not to be confused with the principles just submitted to you; that is, where the boundary line between coterminous proprietors—ad joining landowners—is unascertained, unsettled, and not agreed to between the parties, and is disputed, and the parties get together and by agreement settle the dispute . . by establishing fences or marking trees, or the like, and then follow up such agreement by each possessing the land up to the line, . . such an agreement operates to settle and establish the line and make it the boundary between the parties in such case; and the court instructs you that if you believe from the evidence that the parties to this cause, or their predecessors in title, or either of them, have in this manner with adjoining landowners settled upon and established the boundary between the property in controversy in the case, such acts would operate to control you in the determination of this issue.”
Bennet & Harrell, for plaintiff in error.
Branch & Snow, contra.

Opinion:
Gilbert, J.
It is insisted that the vice contained in the instruction of the court is in the employment of the conjunctive "and" instead of the disjunctive "or," so as to make the rule of agreed boundaries apply only when the line is not only unascertained and uncertain, but also disputed; whereas the rule should have been made applicable where the line is uncertain, or unascertained, or disputed. In many adjudicated cases, as well as in the text-books and encyclopedias the words "uncertain," "unascertained," and "disputed" are treated as practically synonymous. These words are often used apparently on the theory that the use of either one or all of them leads to the same result. In 9 C. J. 234, it is said that "according to some decisions there must not only be doubt and uncertainty in respect of the true division line, but there must also be an actual dispute or controversy between the parties. In other decisions in which this question has been directly presented and passed on, the contrary view is maintained." In a footnote to the text a .number of cases are cited pro and con. In this State the precise question has not been ruled upon.' The language of the decisions, however, conveys the idea that the words under consideration have been used as substantially synonymous. A line which is uncertain is unascertained; and while the coterminous owners may be content to accept the status quo and leave the line unestablished, such a course would be contrary to human nature. A boundary line, in point of fact, is in dispute where the respective owners are not in agreement as to its location. It is not necessary that they should be in actual controversy in or out of court. In the ease of Osteen v. Wynn, 131 Ga. 209, 214 (62 S. E. 37, 127 Am. St. R. 212), it is said: "Where there is room for controversy as to the location of a dividing line, the coterminous proprietors . . may orally agree upon the line: and if the agreement is accompanied by possession to the agreed line, or is otherwise duly executed, such agreement will be valid and binding, and the line thus defined will thereafter control their deeds." Indeed, it may well be said that a "disputed" land line, to be the basis of a parol agreement, must also be uncertain or unascertained. It would be absurd to declare a bare or baseless dispute a basis for such agreement. There- can, of course, be a twilight zone where the degree of uncertainty would be infinitesimal. That, however, is not for consideration in this case. See Miller v. McGlaun, 63 Ga. 435.
The second and third headnotes require no elaboration.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur, except