Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448When the boundary line between two or more counties is in dispute and the grand jury of either county presents that the boundary line needs to be marked out and defined, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the superior court in the county where the presentments were made to certify the presentments to the Governor. The Governor shall appoint some suitable and competent land surveyor, who shall not reside in either county, to survey, mark out, and define the boundary line in dispute and to return the survey with plat to the Secretary of State's office to be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose.
(Ga. L. 1887, p. 106, § 1; Civil Code 1895, § 386; Civil Code 1910, § 472; Code 1933, § 23-401; Ga. L. 1977, p. 248, § 1.)
- For annual survey on local government law, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 135 (2014).
This section and the following section do not contemplate actions between counties, but the statutes devise a process by which the line as originally fixed by the legislature in the formation of the counties shall be ascertained and made certain. Early County v. Baker County, 137 Ga. 126, 72 S.E. 905 (1911) (see O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 and O.C.G.A. Ch. 3, T. 36).
- Mandamus will issue to compel ordinary (now judge of the probate court) to comply with the Act of 1879. Dickson v. Hill, 75 Ga. 369 (1885).
- Trial court erred by granting a county mandamus relief in a county boundary line dispute action pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 36-3-20 et seq., because while mandamus was authorized to compel the Georgia Secretary of State to do certain tasks, it was not authorized to dictate where the boundary line was to be located. Bibb County v. Monroe County, 294 Ga. 730, 755 S.E.2d 760 (2014).
- When the public authorities in locating line under this and the following sections located the line so that the line included land between lines contended for by parties to the litigation in which a judgment had been rendered, this did not nullify the prior judgment fixing the boundary line between the parties. Caverly v. Stovall, 143 Ga. 705, 85 S.E. 844 (1915).
Cited in Fine v. Dade County, 198 Ga. 655, 32 S.E.2d 246 (1944).
- 12 Am. Jur. 2d, Boundaries, § 46 et seq.
- 20 C.J.S., Counties, § 26 et seq.
- Right of political division to challenge acts or proceedings by which its boundaries or limits are affected, 86 A.L.R. 1367.
No results found for Georgia Code 36-3-20.