SWICORD et al. v. HESTER., 240 Ga. 484, 241 S.E.2.d 242 (1977)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Text
Ben Kirbo, for appellants.
This case involves a boundary line dispute between the parties. The plaintiff-appellee filed for a temporary restraining order to restrain and enjoin the defendants-appellants from destroying the existing fence line and growing plants on their property until the matter could be resolved in court. Appellants answered, denying that there was any genuine dispute of the dividing line, alleging that the dividing line is as shown by appellee's deed and claiming that the old fence line is on the property of the appellants.
The case proceeded to a jury trial. A verdict was returned in favor of the appellee, declaring the old fence to be the boundary line between the two tracts. Judgment was entered on the verdict. Appellants filed this appeal, enumerating four errors.
1. After reviewing the pleadings and the evidence, we find that the appellee proved, with the requisite degree of particularity, the property which he sought to protect. Appellee, in his complaint, alleged that an existing fence line was the dividing line between his and appellants' property. Several witnesses testified as to its location, and to the lines which completely enclosed the property to be recovered. The defense introduced a plat showing the disputed area.
A description of boundaries is sufficient if it describes a completely enclosed tract, even though no courses or distances are given. Hardy v. Rylie, 213 Ga. 672 (2) (100 SE2d 898) (1957). Under these circumstances, we do not find that verdict and judgment were too vague and uncertain to be enforced.
James M. Pace, Jr., for appellee.
1977
Sponsored links
