Section requires abstract of title in addition to notice.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-11-12 requires the annexation of an abstract of the title relied on for recovery in addition to notice of the title. Minor v. Sullivan, 220 Ga. 793, 141 S.E.2d 910 (1965).

Object of the abstract is not to show title in the plaintiff on the face of the pleadings, but only to give notice of what is relied upon at the trial. Yonn v. Pittman, 82 Ga. 637, 9 S.E. 667 (1889); Callahan v. Beeland, 170 Ga. 760, 154 S.E. 226 (1930); Segars v. Crump, 177 Ga. 665, 170 S.E. 785 (1933).

Petition may state that plaintiff "claims title" under abstract.

- Where the petition departs from the statutory form and alleges that the plaintiff "claims title" under an abstract of title annexed to the petition, this is equivalent to an allegation that the plaintiff's title is as defined in the abstract. Dugas v. Hammond, 130 Ga. 87, 60 S.E. 268 (1908).

No dismissal although inadmissible affidavit added to abstract.

- Inclusion of an ex parte affidavit of possession in the abstract of title attached to the petition, did not make the petition subject to demurrer (now motion to dismiss) merely because the affidavit would not be admissible in evidence. Palmer v. Mann, 206 Ga. 144, 56 S.E.2d 467 (1949).

Declaration in ejectment is amendable by adding abstract, which is a necessary part of the declaration. Camp v. Smith, 61 Ga. 449 (1878); Carter v. Greer, 72 Ga. 897 (1884); Oellrich v. Georgia R.R., 73 Ga. 389 (1884).

Abstract unnecessary in common-law ejection.

- O.C.G.A. § 44-11-12's requirement that an abstract of title be attached to the petition applies only to actions for recovery of land and mesne profits, not actions of ejectment brought in the common-law form. Georgia Iron & Coal Co. v. Allison, 116 Ga. 444, 42 S.E. 794 (1902).

Abstract unnecessary in injunctions against trespass.

- The requirement that a plaintiff attach to the petition, an abstract of the title plaintiff relies on, does not apply to a plaintiff suing in equity to enjoin a trespass, such as cutting timber; such action is not an action to recover land. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 123 Ga. 326, 51 S.E. 418 (1905).

Abstract unnecessary in petitions to reform deed.

- A plaintiff who petitions in equity to reform a deed which the defendant had fraudulently altered, need not attach to the petition an abstract of the title relied on, in order to recover land and mesne profits. Prater v. Bennett, 98 Ga. 413, 25 S.E. 510 (1896).

Cited in Callahan v. Beeland, 170 Ga. 760, 154 S.E. 226 (1930); Allgood Farm, LLC v. Johnson, 275 Ga. 297, 565 S.E.2d 471 (2002); Newcomer v. Newcomer, 278 Ga. 776, 606 S.E.2d 238 (2004).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 25 Am. Jur. 2d, Ejectment, § 34.

C.J.S.

- 28A C.J.S., Ejectment, § 61.