Mason v. Nour

Atkinson, Presiding Justice. 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.” Ha mil v. Gormley, 188 Ga. 585 (4 S. E. 2d, 471), and cit. See Crider v. Woodward, 162 Ga. 743, 752 (135 S. E. 95). In the instant case the petition with the plat attached thereto as exhibit A, construed most strongly against the plaintiff, as it must be on demurrer, failed to describe the property in such .manner as would enable the sheriff, in the event of a recovery by the plaintiff, to execute a writ of possession. 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 0. Georgia Peruvian Ochre Co. v. Cherokee Ochre Co., 152 Ga. 150, 154 (108 S. E. 609). 3. The judge did not err in dismissing the action on general demurrer to the petition. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. *64 John I. Kelley and Edith Campbell, for plaintiffs. Tye, Thomson & Tye, for defendant.