O.C.G.A. § 44-4-1 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Powers and duties imposed on processioners appointed under former Civil Code 1910, § 3817 (see O.C.G.A. § 44-4-1) were quasi-judicial, and the body of processioners in a given district was a ‘‘commission’’ within the meaning of former Civil Code 1910, § 4642 (see O.C.G.A. § 15-1-8). Tucker v. Roberts, 151 Ga. 753, 108 S.E. 222 (1921). Processioners of land have neither express nor implied power to administer oath to anyone, for any purpose whatever. Dalton v. Higgins, 34 Ga. 433 (1866). Role of processioners. - Georgia law provides that in cases of disputed lines individuals appointed as processioners may, along with a county surveyor, mark the lines anew, and in such a case it is the duty of the processioners to fix and determine the boundaries as the boundaries actually exist; and to that end, the processioners shall run and mark anew those lines which can be taken as having been formerly located and established, and not undertake to locate the lines as the processioners might think they should originally have been laid out. Howell v. United States, 519 F. Supp. 298 (N.D. Ga. 1981). De facto processioners. - Where persons holding office as processioners in a militia district in a particular county in this state entertain an application by a landowner to survey and mark a land line as authorized by statute, and after surveying and making the line, file their report with the ordinary (now probate judge) as required by statute, such persons are officers de facto even if the individuals do not hold office under lawful appointment, and the report filed by the individuals should not be set aside on the ground that the appointment of the officers was unauthorized by law. Tucker v. Roberts, 151 Ga. 753, 108 S.E. 222 (1921). Since the ordinary (now probate judge), under the law, has the right to appoint a

processioner, an appointment by the ordinary (now probate judge), although not made at the term of court, or otherwise, as provided by law, orally made outside the court house, while the ordinary (now probate judge) is on the street, by addressing the appointee and telling the appointee that the ordinary (now probate judge) is appointed processioner for the designated district of the county, is sufficient to give the appointee who, pursuant to such appointment, assumes office and exercises the duties thereof, the apparent right or color of title to the office, and thereby to constitute oneself an officer de facto. The acts of an officer de facto in discharging the duties of the office are good and cannot be collaterally attacked. Usry v. Hadden, 65 Ga. App. 227, 15 S.E.2d 629 (1941). Processioner related to a party. - When a processioner in a proceeding to procession land lines is related within the fourth degree by consanguinity or affinity to the applicant alone, or to either the applicant or protestant, the processioner is disqualified, and such disqualification is sufficient ground for setting aside a return of the processioners in which the processioner participated. Tucker v. Roberts, 151 Ga. 753, 108 S.E. 222 (1921). When, in a processioning proceeding, a processioner was disqualified by reason of relationship to one or both of the parties, such relationship rendered the return of the processioners void, and could be dismissed on motion for that reason, although not made until after the processioners had made the processioners’ return. Riner v. Flanders, 173 Ga. 43, 159 S.E. 693 (1931). Cited in Benton v. Horsley, 71 Ga. 619 (1883); Philpot v. Wells, 69 Ga. App. 489, 26 S.E.2d 155 (1943); Anthony v. Wright, 76 Ga. App. 425, 46 S.E.2d 194 (1948); Shelton v. Long, 177 Ga. App. 534, 339 S.E.2d 788 (1986).