Wheeler v. Thomas
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Goodson v. Pope (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)
- Darnell v. Betty's Creek Baptist Church (Ga. 1973)
- Rogers v. Beavers (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
- Rogers v. Beavers (Ga. Ct. App. 1947)
- Veal v. Barber (Ga. 1944)
- Smith v. Clemons (Ga. Ct. App. 1944)
- Hall v. Browning (Ga. Ct. App. 1944)
- Pearre v. Wilkinson (Ga. 1936)
- Standard Oil Co. v. Altman (Ga. 1931)
- Mattox v. DeLoach (Ga. Ct. App. 1924)
- McAlpin v. Thompson (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
- Elkins v. Merritt (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
- Elkins v. Merritt (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The remedy afforded by the statute for the processioning of land (Civil Code, § 3818 et seq.) is applicable only to the location of land lines which once were marked or established. It is not available as a proceeding to malee and establish new lines between adjacent landowners, nor as a substitute for an action to try conflicting claims of title to land. Amos v. Parker, 88 Ga. 754 (16 S. E. 200); Crawford v. Wheeler, 111 Ga. 870 (36 S. E. 954); Walker v. Boyer, 121 Ga. 300 (48 S. E. 916). Accordingly, where it was admitted on the trial of the issue formed on a protest to the return of proeessioners that they undertook to mark anew and run a line where there had never been a line of any character, and the evidence disclosed that the real controversy was whether the dividing line between the adjacent landowners was the high-water mark or the thread of a creek, neither of which was shown to have been established as a dividing line, it was not error to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction of the proeessioners over • the subject-matter.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.