O.C.G.A. § 44-4-4 (2019)
Processioner’s return
The processioners shall make a return of their acts within 30 days, together with the plat of the surveyor, to the judge of the probate court of the county to be kept on file in his office. (Laws 1799, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 718; Code 1863, § 2360; Code 1868, § 2357; Code 1873, § 2392; Code 1882, § 2392; Civil Code 1895, § 3251; Ga. L. 1905, p. 83, § 1; Civil Code 1910, § 3825; Code 1933, § 85-1607.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Return, properly construed, officially does no more than mark anew the boundary line indicated in the application and the return of the processioners with the plat attached. McAlpin v. Thompson, 29 Ga. App. 495, 116 S.E. 64 (1923). Return entered on the plat is satisfactory. International Paper Co. v. Kight, 239 Ga. 551, 238 S.E.2d 88 (1977). Return need not be sworn. - There is no law requiring that the return of processioners be sworn to. Philpot v. Wells, 69 Ga. App. 489, 26 S.E.2d 155 (1943). Description of land in return and attached plat sufficiently identifies land described in application. McAlpin v. Thompson, 29 Ga. App. 495, 116 S.E. 64 (1923). Plat and return both necessary to proceedings. - Plat of the surveyor and the return of the processioners are both necessary parts of the proceedings, and neither is complete without the other. It is therefore error to reject the return of the processioners, and
admit the plat of the surveyor, but this rejection furnishes no ground for reversal on behalf of the party at whose instance it was done. Rattaree v. Morrow, 71 Ga. 528 (1883). Failure to file application with return and plat. - It is proper that the processioners file the application to the processioners, together with the processioners’ report and the plat of the surveyor, with the ordinary (now probate judge), but a failure to thus file such application will not afford a good ground upon which to dismiss the proceedings. Caverly v. Stovall, 134 Ga. 677, 68 S.E. 442 (1910); McCool v. Wilcher, 27 Ga. App. 96, 107 S.E. 365 (1921). Failure to actually physically mark portion of line. - Return of processioners is not subject to dismissal merely because the processioners may have failed to actually physically mark or trace a portion of the line shown as run on the plat attached to the processioners’ return, provided the return,
together with the plat, shows a substantial performance of the duties imposed upon the processioners’. Hackle v. Bowen, 89 Ga. App. 799, 81 S.E.2d 294 (1954). Use of erroneous, illegal, or improper method to locate line. - Fact that the processioners may have used an erroneous, illegal, or improper method in ascertaining the location of a line would not subject the processioners’ return to dismissal, but would merely authorize a jury finding against the line as run. Hackle v. Bowen, 89 Ga. App. 799, 81 S.E.2d 294 (1954). Parties may submit plat reflecting court’s findings. - When the line described by the court’s order is supported by the evidence
adduced at trial, but it is not sufficiently specific to serve as a processioning line, an order permitting either party to submit a plat reflecting the findings of the court is appropriate and promotes judicial economy and efficiency. Page v. Guin, 187 Ga. App. 143, 369 S.E.2d 517 (1988), aff ’d, 190 Ga. App. 357, 378 S.E.2d 736 (1989). Cited in Tucker v. Roberts, 151 Ga. 753, 108 S.E. 222 (1921); Russell v. King, 180 Ga. 271, 178 S.E. 706 (1935); Anthony v. Wright, 76 Ga. App. 425, 46 S.E.2d 194 (1948); Edenfield v. Lanier, 77 Ga. App. 535, 48 S.E.2d 777 (1948); Jarrard v. Wildes, 87 Ga. App. 30, 73 S.E.2d 116 (1952); Irby v. Raley, 88 Ga. App. 807, 78 S.E.2d 72 (1953).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 15A Am. Jur. 2d, Condominiums and Cooperative Apartments, § 51 et seq. 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Deeds, § 192 et seq.
C.J.S. - 51C C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 232.