## Facts

- A city and county sued a fraternal organization for a declaratory decree of title and a writ of possession to land located in the county where suit was filed; no equitable relief was requested.
- The city and county alleged they held title under a deed, and that later “deeds of gift” purporting to convey the land to the organization were void because the local governments lacked authority to make a gratuitous transfer.
- The deed relied on by the city and county described the land in part by “running south about eight acres,” and the organization asserted the description was too indefinite to identify the land.
- The city and county amended to allege prior possession of the disputed property; the organization denied prior possession.
- The organization claimed title through the challenged deeds of gift and alternatively by adverse possession.
- The trial court denied the organization’s venue/jurisdiction motion, granted judgment on the pleadings for the city and county, and denied the organization’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

## Issues

1. Whether an action seeking a decree of title and writ of possession, without equitable relief, is a “case respecting title to land” that must be tried in the county where the land lies.
2. Whether the city and county’s deed description was so indefinite that the deed was void and ineffective as title or color of title.
3. Whether deeds of gift from a city and county to a private entity were void as unconstitutional donations or gratuities.
4. Whether adverse possession can run against a city or county, including when property is held in a proprietary capacity.
5. Whether judgment on the pleadings for the city and county was proper when prior possession was pleaded and denied.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss for improper venue, holding the action was properly brought where the land lies.
- The court held the deed relied upon by the city and county was void for indefiniteness and could not operate as a conveyance or as color of title.
- The court held the deeds of gift from the city and county to the organization were void as prohibited donations or gratuities.
- The court held the organization could not acquire title by adverse possession because prescription does not run against a city or county, regardless of whether the property is held in a governmental or proprietary capacity.
- The court reversed the grant of judgment on the pleadings for the city and county because prior possession was contested on the pleadings, requiring fact-finding.

## Legal Principles

- Actions at law respecting title to land and seeking recovery of possession must be tried in the county where the land is located.
- A deed must describe land with sufficient certainty to allow identification; a description that provides no workable means to locate boundaries is void and cannot serve as color of title.
- A city or county lacks constitutional authority to convey public property as a donation or gratuity to a private party; such gift deeds are void.
- Adverse possession does not run against a county or municipality, whether the property is held in a governmental or proprietary capacity.
- Judgment on the pleadings is improper when a material fact essential to recovery (such as prior possession) is disputed by the pleadings.

## Conclusion

The Georgia Supreme Court upheld venue in the county where the land lay, declared the plaintiffs’ deed void for indefiniteness, held local-government gift deeds unconstitutional and void, rejected adverse possession against the city and county, and reversed judgment on the pleadings because prior possession was a contested factual issue.


Grand Lodge of Ga., Indep. Ord. of Odd Fellows v. City of Thomasville, 226 Ga. 4, 172 S.E.2d 612 (1970)