Document (1)
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2019 LexisNexis
Emmanuel Ortega
Neutral
As of: August 21, 2019 2:22 AM Z
Holmes v. Jones
Supreme Court of Georgia
March, 1888, Decided
No Number in Original
Reporter
80 Ga. 659 *; 7 S.E. 168 **; 1888 Ga. LEXIS 215 ***
provided for abatement in the method sought. The court
HOLMES et ux. vs. JONES et ux.
further held that the questions whether at the time the
property was divided the road was a way of necessity,
Prior History: [***1] Private ways. Jurisdiction. Justice
whether it continued to be, and whether it was
courts. Ordinary. Before Judge FAIN. Dade superior
abandoned were matters of fact for the jury, which they
court. September term, 1887.
well decided in favor of the inner proprietor.
Reported in the decision.
Outcome
Disposition: Judgment affirmed. The court affirmed the judgment.
Procedural Posture Whether a way in use at the time lands were divided
Outer proprietors sought review of a judgment of the amongst the heirs at law of the deceased proprietor of
Dade Superior Court (Georgia), which overruled an extensive tract, was, in fact, a way of necessity, and
certiorari and affirmed a decision of a court of ordinary so regarded by the parties at interest, and whether its
in favor of complainant inner proprietor in an action to continuous use was contemplated, and whether it was
abate a nuisance. subsequently abandoned in consequence of the
opening and the use for a time of a new way, are all
Overview questions of fact, and in the present case they were well
An intestate owned certain real estate. During his decided by the appropriate tribunal.
lifetime, a certain road was kept open for many years as
a way to reach the public road from the home settlement May 14, 1888.
on the premises. After the intestate died, the property
was divided amongst the intestate's heirs, and at the Counsel: W. U. & J. P. JACOWAY, by R. J. MCCAMY,
time of the division the road was open and used. The for plaintiffs in error.
outer proprietors later closed the road, and the inner LUMPKIN & BROCK, by brief, contra.
proprietor, who occupied the old homestead and was
excluded from using the road by an obstruction, sued Judges: Bleckley, Chief Justice.
out a process before the magistracy of his district to
abate the obstruction as a nuisance. The jury found for Opinion by: BLECKLEY
the inner proprietor, and the superior court affirmed. The
court affirmed, holding that the magistracy had Opinion
jurisdiction pursuant to a Georgia statute because the
case was one of private nuisance, and the statute
Emmanuel Ortega
Page 2 of 2
80 Ga. 659, *659; 7 S.E. 168, **168; 1888 Ga. LEXIS 215, ***1
Judgment affirmed.
End of Document
Emmanuel Ortega