ROBINSON v. VEAL

7 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. Ervin

    225 S.E.2d 21 (Ga. 1976)   Cited 4 times

    The evidence produced on the trial of the case authorized the charge and there is no merit in this enumeration of error. Veal v. Robinson, 70 Ga. 809; Boatright v. Smith, 208 Ga. 158, 162 ( 65 S.E.2d 589) (1951). 6. The ninth enumeration of error complains of an excerpt of the charge wherein the trial court instructed the jury on fraud.

  2. Whitton v. Whitton

    131 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. 1963)

    See Holt v. Anderson, 98 Ga. 220 ( 25 S.E. 496). The allegation as to adverse possession for more than seven years by the children under color of title was sufficient to withstand a general demurrer. Code §§ 85-401, 85-402, 85-407; Veal v. Robinson, 70 Ga. 809. It was not error to overrule the general demurrer to the amendment nor was it error to overrule the special demurrers on the ground that the three defenses were duplicitous and contradictory. Code § 81-310. 3.

  3. Blue Ridge c. Co. v. Telfair c. Co.

    54 S.E.2d 608 (Ga. 1949)   Cited 6 times
    In Blue Ridge Apartment Co. v. Telfair Stockton Co., 205 Ga. 552, 560 (54 S.E.2d 608), (one Justice dissenting), this court held that the descriptive language "all the assets, tangible and intangible, property, real, personal and mixed, business and good will of the company..." was not sufficient to pass title to land.

    " For cases to the same effect see: Hammond Hinson v. Crosby Co., 68 Ga. 767; Sweeney v. Sweeney, 119 Ga. 76, 79. "Color of title is anything in writing purporting to convey title to the land, which defines the extent of the claim." Veal v. Robinson, 70 Ga. 809. In Millen v. Stines, 81 Ga. 655 ( 8 S.E. 315), this court held that possession of lands in good faith under a forged bond for title for seven years would give a good title by prescription.

  4. Warlick v. Rome Loan Finance Co.

    22 S.E.2d 61 (Ga. 1942)   Cited 11 times

    " Street v. Collier, 118 Ga. 470 ( 45 S.E. 294). It may be only a sign or semblance of title. Veal v. Robinson, 70 Ga. 809 (2). So, entries by a sheriff without more have been held sufficient as color under the seven-year statute. Field v. Boynton, 33 Ga. 239 (3), 242. It has been so held also as to a mere letter describing land and stating, "I herewith surrender any rights and title therein to yourself or wife, just as you may choose."

  5. Wilson v. Atkinson

    77 Cal. 485 (Cal. 1888)   Cited 20 times

    Color of title is that which in appearance is title, but which in reality is no title. (Wright v. Mattison, 18 How. 54.)          In the case of Veal v. Robinson , 70 Ga. 816, it was held that "color of title is anything in writing purporting to convey title to land, which defines the extent of the claim, it being immaterial how defective or imperfect the writing may be, so that it is a sign, semblance, or color of title."          In Brooks v. Bruyn , 35 Ill. 394, it is said: "Any instrument having a grantor and a grantee, and containing a description of the lands intended to be conveyed, and apt words for their conveyance, gives color of title to the lands described.

  6. Ansley v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

    71 S.E.2d 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952)   Cited 5 times

    However, the presumption of the legality of the grant of a new trial weakens upon each concurrent verdict. A second and third grant of a new trial should be more closely scrutinized, and the reviewing court must carefully investigate to determine if the discretion to grant a second or third new trial has been justly, wisely, and prudently exercised, for, while the trial judge may still exercise some discretion to set aside a second verdict in favor of the same party where the evidence is weak and unsatisfactory, or where it largely preponderates in favor of the losing party, he may no longer set aside the verdict merely because of conflicts in the evidence or because he considers the issue a close and doubtful one. Scribner's Sons v. Mutual Building Co., 1 Ga. App. 527 (2) ( 58 S.E. 240); Lewis v. Equitable Mortgage Co., 99 Ga. 336 ( 25 S.E. 728); Veal v. Robinson, 76 Ga. 838; Dethrage v. City of Rome, 125 Ga. 802 ( 54 S.E. 654); Cook v. Western Atlantic Railroad, 72 Ga. 48; Morgan v. Lamb, 16 Ga. App. 484 (1) ( 85 S.E. 792); Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Randolph, 136 Ga. 505 ( 71 S.E. 887); Taylor v. Central R. Bkg. Co., 79 Ga. 330 ( 5 S.E. 114); Davis v. Chaplin, 102 Ga. 587 ( 27 S.E. 726); Gay v. Parker, 74 Ga. 407; Christian v. Westbrook, 75 Ga. 852; Hazzard v. Mayor c. of Savannah, 74 Ga. 377; Merchants Miners Transp. Co. v. Corcoran, 4 Ga. App. 654 ( 62 S.E. 130). If an error of law is properly pointed out to the trial court, harmful to the movant, it is his duty to set aside the verdict. The errors of law alleged to have been committed have been previously dealt with.

  7. Smith v. State

    62 Ga. App. 733 (Ga. Ct. App. 1940)   Cited 7 times
    In Smith v. State, 62 Ga. App. 733 (2) (9 S.E.2d 714) (1940), this court held that the prior version of this statute "did not take away jurisdiction from the superior courts to try misdemeanor violations of traffic laws and vest such jurisdiction in... Municipal courts... exclusively as against the superior courts."

    This distinction in the Thompson case is clearly pointed out in the case of Bell v. State, 19 Ga. App. 41 (2) ( 90 S.E. 733), also cited by counsel for movant. A further citation of authorities on this point is as follows: Morrison v. Dodge, 94 Ga. 730 ( 20 S.E. 422); Robinson v. Veal, 65 Ga. 592 (2); Price v. Price, 122 Ga. 321 ( 50 S.E. 91); Stansell v. Merchants Farmers Bank, 123 Ga. 278 ( 51 S.E. 321); Hawkins v. Tanner, 129 Ga. 497 ( 59 S.E. 225); Terrell County v. Dawson, 172 Ga. 403 (7) ( 158 S.E. 47); Shaine v. Block, 28 Ga. App. 329 ( 111 S.E. 79); Warren v. Colvin, 49 Ga. App. 91 ( 174 S.E. 257); General Tire Rubber Co. v. Brown Tire Co., 46 Ga. App. 548 (3) ( 168 S.E. 75). The first intimation that this court had that there was a brief of evidence filed in this case was in the motion for rehearing. We may say also that a consideration of the complaints in the motion for new trial shows no ground for a reversal of the case.