*1 clearly processioners The in this case discloses that record line existing dividing did not and mark between locate anew an Pope Pope that of W. F. and property of- J. Brewer and R. on they line, Goodson but established new based parties conflicting claims of title of contentions and previously estab- boundary where no had been involved, line authority acting were thus processioners lished. without law, as is not substitute for an action processioning tiy (Amos v. Parker, title to conflicting claims of land 88 Ga. 574, supra; Wheeler supra; Wheeler, v. Crawford finding against their v. and Thomas, supra); 139 Ga. verdict, however, its jury return was demanded. The attempted against but processioners, found the return of jury dividing set line. This up another as the line true as- do, could not for evidence of definite and there was no- having certainable line been established between dividing title parties dispute here muniments of lands of whose “A boundaiy. lines verdict called as the common different processioners, where finding the return of specific and certain to sufficiently evidence is not and definite dividing line line, other issue as establish some procured. had never been though processioning stands Browning, Hall v. SE Russell v. King, 180 Ga. The remedy processioning unavailing thus these parties, dispute whose one of title boundary, and not merely denying trial orders court motion to dismiss the return set and to aside the of the jury verdict are reversed proceeding parties with direction dismissed as to the appeal. Boyer, 300, supra. to this Walker Judgment Felton, J., Deen, J., with C. reversed direction. concur.
41343. HILLHOUSE v. C. W. MATTHEWS CONTRACTING
COMPANY. *2 Submitted June 1965 Decided June July Johnson & Johnson, Johnson, Jr., Jean error. E. Beed, B. M. contra. Judge. “It Presiding well settled a rule
Nichols,
pleadings
must
construed in the
their omissions as
be
(121
Pollard,
their averments.
well as
Houston v.
to make left a time when the intersection clear of *3 oncoming allegation traffic. there no there However, was oncoming was no “so close to traffic thereto as constitute an hazard,” required immediate by 68-1651, Code Ann. before § the plaintiff right way would obtain the of such intersection. allegation plaintiff Nor the that the observed the did defendant’s truck he had reached southeast corner of such inter- after section such oncoming show traffic was not an immediate hazard at plaintiff began being time the to make his left there turn, no why facts as to truck was not visible defendant’s plaintiff. construing Therefore, petition in the of its averments omissions, as well as its under Code 105-603, plaintiff, § care, ordinary the exercise of have could avoided the conse- quences negligence of the defendant’s by waiting oncoming until was not so close as to traffic constitute an hazard, immediate negligence all allegations being allegations of of acts observ- if he looked, able had based, directly either indirectly, speed or on the excessive of the agent, defendant’s failed set forth a cause of action defendant, judgment sustaining gen- of the trial court defendant’s assigned. for demurrer error reason eral con- Pannell, J., concurs. Eberhardt, J., Judgment affirmed. specially. curs, agree that I cannot concurring specially. Judge,
Pannell, of allege the existence of the part failure on the approved Act IX, Art. 73 of requirements all the § 590; pp. Code (Ga. Sess., Nov. January 11, 1954 plaintiff to entitle 68-1651), necessary to Ann. § intersection, precludes an making a left way when case. present the facts recovery of law under as a matter plaintiff to look failure of I however, agree, intersection at the making a left turn oncoming traffic before reason I concur latter this and for recovery, does bar his sustaining gen- judge in the trial affirming judgment in the petition. eral demurrer to the et al. BOSTICK.
41348. USRY Argued Decided June June July denied