78 Ga. 163 | Ga. | 1887
The only question in this case is, whether the return of certain processioners was competent evidence on the trial
We think there was no error in this. While the code, §2385, requires ten days’ written notice of the time for marking the line to be given, and restrains the processioners from proceeding to run it, until satisfactory evidence of the service of the notice shall be produced to them, yet where the notice has been given and the processioning is for any cause postponed to another day, no provision is made for the kind of notice to be given of the postponement. If the party complaining really had notice of the postponement, verbal or written, we think this a substantial compliance with the act. Section 2386 of the code provides that, when the plat is made out and delivered to the party asking the processioning, and certified by the surveyor as provided, it shall be considered prima facie correct, and’ shall be admissible in evidence without further proof. Had the defendant sought to deprive it of this effect, he could have done so by filing his protest to the same within thirty days after the lines -were run and marked,
Judgment affirmed.