8 S.E.2d 14 | Ga. | 1940
1. "In an action for recovery of land the description of the property must be sufficiently definite to enable the sheriff, in the event the plaintiff recovers, to execute a writ of possession from the description given." Hamil v. Gormley,
2. Since, under the ruling above, the suit must fail as an action for land as referred to in exhibit A, it can not be maintained as an equitable action for the sole purpose of settling disputed land lines of another tract as referred to in exhibit C. Georgia Peruvian Ochre Co. v. Cherokee Ochre Co.,
3. The judge did not err in dismissing the action on general demurrer to the petition.
Judgment affirmed. All the Justicesconcur.
[EDITORS' NOTE: MAP IS ELECTRONICALLY NON-TRANSFERRABLE.] *64
Mrs. Mason alleged that she was the owner of a one-half undivided interest in the property by virtue of a deed made to her on August 31, 1921, and recorded in deed book 138, of the deed records of DeKalb County, Georgia, by Samuel H. Venable, who at that time was the owner of a one-half undivided interest therein. Mrs. Orme and Mrs. Roper alleged that they owned the other half undivided interest, by reason of the fact that their father, William H. Venable, died while seized and possessed of the fee-simple title to said half interest, which at his death vested in them as his children and only heirs at law. The petition contained other allegations, the nature of which is not pertinent to the questions presented by the assignment of error. The exception is to the sustaining of so much of a demurrer filed by the defendant as is contained in the following: "1. That said petition sets forth no cause of action against this defendant. 2. Defendant demurs to said petition, because it is an attempt to join in one suit two separate and distinct causes of action: a case at law for the recovery of land, and a case in equity with reference to boundaries of a separate and distinct tract of land."