
    Cone v. Wall.
    No. 5656.
    July 16, 1927.
    Complaint for land. Before Judge Hutcheson. DeKalb superior court. August 14, 1926.
    Mrs. Ora Wall brought a complaint against Mrs. W. H. Cone, Miss Alice Giles, Mrs. Annie S. Giles, and Sam Dunlap, for the recovery of a certain tract or parcel of land described as “all that tract or parcel of land lying and being in land lot 206 of the 15th district of DeKalb County, Georgia, and more particularly described as follows: beginning at a point on the east side of formerly East Avenue, now Petropol Street, 322.8 feet south of the southeast corner of said Petropol Street and Metropolitan Avenue in formerly Kirkwood, now Atlanta, and from this point extending east 152.8 feet to a private alley, thence south 50 feet, thence west along the line of lot No. 20 of the subdivision of the Cameron property 9.3 feet, thence north to a point on the north line of said lot 20, at a point 9.5 feet from the east line of said lot; said tract or parcel of land being 9.5 feet at the north end, and 9.3 feet at the south end, by 50 feet in length.” By amendment the plaintiff struck the names of all the defendants except Mrs. W. H. Cone, and the suit proceeded against her alone. The defendant filed an answer admitting possession of part of the property described in the petition, and averred that she had been in adverse possession under color of title of the upper part of the premises in controversy, to wit, “a tract measuring 37-% feet north and south and 9.5 feet east and west since July 31, 1914, and that this possession has been public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted, and peaceable, and that the defendant and her predecessors in title have been in like adverse possession of the premises since May 21, 1901. Both plaintiff and defendant claim under the Atlanta Suburban Land Corporation, a common grantor; and both filed abstracts of title relied on for recovery. On the trial the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant made a motion for new trial, on the usual general grounds and eight special grounds, which motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
   Hill, J.

There is no substantial error in the charge of the court complained of. The verdict is supported by the evidence, and the judge did not err in overruling the motion for new trial.

Appeal and Error, 4 O. J. p. 852, n. 56; p. 1130, n. 63.

Ejectment, 19 C. J. p. 1178, n. 30.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

J. G. Murphy and George B. Rush, for plaintiff in error.

P. K. Burns and J. J. Barge, contra.  