James v. Riley

Atkinson, Gilbert, and Hutcheson, JJ.,

concurring specially. The judgment is properly reversed, but it should not be inferred from what is ruled that it is essential for a recovery that the plaintiff show prescriptive title to the land. Proof of possession under color, which was shown, was sufficient. Palmer v. Pennington, 179 Ga. 76 (supra); and see dissenting opinion in Downing v. Anderson, 126 Ga. 373, 376 (supra).