Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

88 Ga. 754

Amos v. Parker

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided March 5, 1892

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1892-03-05

Processioning. Practice. Jurisdiction. .Before Judge Martin. Taylor superior court. February term, 1891. In tlie office of the clerk of tlie superior court was filed a report signed by three persons as processioners, in substance as follows : The undersigned pi’ocessioners of tlie 737th district G. M., met on the northeastern part of land lot 109 in the 15th district of Taylor county.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1892-03-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 1965 · most notably Veal v. Barber (1944), Crawford v. Wheeler (1900)

24 state decisions

7018921900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bleckley, Chief Justice.

¶1The statutory provisions applicable to this case are found in the code, §§2384-2393 inclusive. To ascertain and fix new lines is not within the power or functions of processioners. Their vocation is to run and mark lines which at some previous time were located and established. They seek and find lines already existing, but cannot bring into existence any which have not been before designated on the surface of the earth. Lines merely drawn on paper or in the minds of contracting parties, are not ready for the search or services of processioners. Moreover, any one dissatisfied with their work cannot protest against it and make that protest *756a ground for returning the papers to tlie superior court and there having a trial, until a line has been actually run and marked. This is necessary to give the superior court jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and cannot be dispensed with by the consent of the parties. The line “as run and marked” is the subject-matter to which any litigation under the protest must relate, and when there is no such subject-matter, there is no jurisdiction. For this reason the court correctly refused to grant a new trial, and nothing remains but to dismiss the whole proceeding, and direction is given that this be done.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

/88/ga/754 · .json · Public domain