Case Summary: KING v. FOX et al., Docket No. 35264 (Sup. Ct. Ga. 1979)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a land line dispute tried in Lee Superior Court before Judge Blanks. The jury found for the plaintiffs-appellees that "the dividing line between the property of plaintiffs in land lot 168 and the property of defendant in land lot 153 is the line surveyed by Joe Dubeau and shown on his plot of survey dated 18 January, 1978," and awarded plaintiffs $280 in damages.

Relevant facts established at trial: appellant (who purchased his land from Cox in 1977 and had lived on the land for 28 years) removed a preexisting fence and erected a new fence approximately 900 feet east onto land claimed by appellees. Appellees had been in possession of their land for 24 years and the property had been in the family since 1943. In 1972 appellees and Cox jointly surveyed, cleared, and set corner and pull posts along the disputed line (each paid one-half the costs); both parties purchased fencing materials, but appellees alone strung the wire at a cost of $280 while Cox did not put up his wire. After the 1972 activity, a 1978 survey by Joe Dubeau—accepted by the jury as the dividing line—varied only slightly (about 15 feet at the north corner and a few feet at the south corner) from the 1972 survey and fence line. Appellees brought suit seeking to enjoin the trespass and to recover damages.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether appellant was entitled to directed verdicts on the issues of adverse possession (prescriptive rights) and damages.
2. Whether the trial court erred in giving certain jury instructions and in refusing to give certain requested instructions.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Appellant contended he was entitled to directed verdicts on adverse possession and on damages.
• Appellant argued the trial court erred by its jury instructions and by refusing to give certain requested instructions.
• Appellant disputed the accuracy of the Dubeau 1978 survey and claimed property only to the land lot line.

Appellees' Position

• Appellees sought to enjoin the alleged trespass and to recover damages ($280 claimed for wire strung to complete the fence).
• Appellees relied on long possession (24 years, family ownership since 1943), the 1972 joint survey and fencing activity, and the 1978 Dubeau survey adopted by the jury as the true dividing line.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court characterized the case as a "classic land line case" involving typical disputes over prescriptive rights and boundary line agreements. It reviewed the transcript of evidence and concluded the appellant was not entitled to directed verdicts on adverse possession and damages. The court noted the jury explicitly found the true land lot line as established by the Dubeau 1978 survey. Because appellant's claim was to the land lot line, his dispute effectively challenged the accuracy of the Dubeau survey—a factual matter resolved by the jury's verdict. The court also reviewed the trial court's jury charge, found it comprehensive and correctly stated applicable principles of law, and determined there was no error in denying appellant's requested charges.

Holding and Implications

Judgment affirmed.

Direct effects: the jury's determination that the dividing line is the Dubeau 1978 survey line and the award of $280 to the plaintiffs-appellees were upheld. The court found no reversible error in denying directed verdicts for appellant or in the trial court's jury instructions. The opinion does not announce or discuss any broader legal precedent beyond affirming the trial court's judgment.