TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Belcher v. Kelly

Belcher v. Kelly, 85 S.E. 696 (Ga. 1915)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 18, 1915
Judges
Atkinson
Citations
85 S.E. 696143 Ga. 5251915 Ga. LEXIS 508
Summary
Certiorar-i. Before Judge Daniel. Fayette superior court. January 16, 1914.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Atkinson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Atkinson, J.

1. Assignments of error not referred to in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error will be treated as abandoned.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize a finding that the applicants were entitled to a private way by prescription over the land of the defendant.

3. Several persons, as individuals, instituted a summary proceeding under the Civil Code, § 825, for the removal of obstructions from an alleged private way through the land of the defendant to a designated Masonic hall. The fact that they described themselves as members of the Masonic lodge would not make the lodge a party plaintiff to the proceeding; and the further fact that the petitioners did not constitute a majority of the members, and that- other members did not desire such obstructions removed, was not cause for reversal of the judgment of the ordinary directing them to be removed.

4. The fact that the deed under which the defendant held from a third person recited that a private way through the land was reserved would not show that the ordinary was without jurisdiction to preside in the summary proceeding for the removal of obstructions from the alleged prescriptive private way claimed by the plaintiffs under the Civil Code, § 825, which was construed, in Holloway v. Birdsong, 139 Ga. 316 ( 77 S. E. 146 ), to be applicable only in eases of private ways by prescription.

5. There was no error in refusing to grant the writ of certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11942: 11962: 12000: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gilliam v. Etheridge21 S.E.2d 556 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942) · Dissent
  2. Latham Homes Sanitation, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.538 S.E.2d 107 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)
  3. Clark v. Anderson183 S.E. 852 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)
  4. Harvey v. Flatman125 S.E.2d 55 (Ga. 1962)

Most recent

  1. Latham Homes Sanitation, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.538 S.E.2d 107 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)
  2. Harvey v. Flatman125 S.E.2d 55 (Ga. 1962)
  3. Gilliam v. Etheridge21 S.E.2d 556 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942) · Dissent
  4. Clark v. Anderson183 S.E. 852 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Holloway v. Birdsong, 77 S.E. 146 (Ga. 1913) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list