Case Name: Jarrell v. Holland et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1920-10-02
Citations: 150 Ga. 597
Docket Number: No. 1671
Parties: Jarrell v. Holland et al.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 150
Pages: 597–597

Head Matter:
Jarrell v. Holland et al.
No. 1671.
October 2, 1920.
Ejectment. Before Judge Park. Jones superior court. August 30, 1919.
This action was brought to recover approximately two acres of farm land. Upon extended and somewhat conflicting evidence the jury found for the defendants; and the plaintiffs motion for a new trial was overruled. In this motion it was alleged that the court erred in the instructions to the jury: (1) On prescriptive title by adverse possession for seven years under written evidence of title, because (as contended) there was no evidence showing prescriptive title under color in the defendant. (2) On the code law of disputed land lines; it being contended that this was not applicable to the facts, there being (as contended) no issue involving a land line. It was further contended, that each party claimed, that the land in controversy was included and described in the deeds and chain of title offered by him, and this made the location of the land an issue of fact for the jury to determine as to whose deed conveyed the land; that the court’s charge as to seven-years possession, being in favor of the defendants and not having been applied to the plaintiff, was prejudicial to the plaintiff unless the court went further and explained to the jury that the law of prescriptive title applied to the defendants only in the event that they found as a fact that the location of the land was described and set forth in the defendants’ deed; and that the charge denied to the plaintiff the right of a finding as to the location of the property. The trial judge referred to the entire charge to the jury, for a consideration of the grounds of the motion.
B. N. Hardeman and Feagin■ & Hancoch, for plaintiff.
Williard W. Burgess and F. Holmes Johnson, for defendants.

Opinion:
Atkinson, J.
Tlio evidence was sufficient to support tlie verdict for the defendants. The only complaint of error committed on the trial appears in exceptions based on the charge of the court. These charges are not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.