Hendrix v. Pirkle

Where, as here, the evidence as to the location of the dividing line between the properties of the parties was conflicting,
this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court in overruling a motion for new trial on the general grounds only
where there was sufficient evidence to show the establishment of a dividing line which had been acquiesced in by acts or declarations
of the owners for more than thirty years, although there was other evidence to the contrary.Where, as here, the evidence as to the location of the dividing line between the properties of the parties was conflicting,
this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court in overruling a motion for new trial on the general grounds only
where there was sufficient evidence to show the establishment of a dividing line which had been acquiesced in by acts or declarations
of the owners for more than thirty years, although there was other evidence to the contrary.Where, as here, the evidence as to the location of the dividing line between the properties of the parties was conflicting,
this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court in overruling a motion for new trial on the general grounds only
where there was sufficient evidence to show the establishment of a dividing line which had been acquiesced in by acts or declarations
of the owners for more than thirty years, although there was other evidence to the contrary.Where, as here, the evidence as to the location of the dividing line between the properties of the parties was conflicting,
this court will not reverse the judgment of the trial court in overruling a motion for new trial on the general grounds only
where there was sufficient evidence to show the establishment of a dividing line which had been acquiesced in by acts or declarations
of the owners for more than thirty years, although there was other evidence to the contrary.