--- title: Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II. Land titles. collection: code id: ga-const:art-vi-sec-ii-para-ii cite_as: Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-ii md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-ii.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-ii/text source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/2ga-const-(v2)-2016-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=f5de823e_0#page=1012 date: 2016 status: active corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68 license: CC0-1.0 publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/index.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-i.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-iii.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md omitted: notes omitted_chars: 8429 omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-ii.md?notes=all&start=11710 version: the only printed version in_force: true current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly heading_path: CONSTITUTION OF THE / JUDICIAL BRANCH / VENUE --- # Ga. Const. Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II. Land titles. A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that. Cases respecting titles to land shall be tried in the county where the land lies, except where a single tract is divided by a county line, in which case the superior court of either county shall have jurisdiction. ## Cross References Exclusive jurisdiction in the superior court, Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IV, Para. I and § 44-2-60. Venue in county in which land lies, § 44-2-67. Venue to foreclose mortgages, § 44-14-180. ## Law Reviews For article, ‘‘Current Problems With Venue in Georgia,’’ see 12 Ga. St. B.J. 71 (1975). For comment on Chase v. Endsley, 165 Ga. 292, 140 S.E. 876 (1927), see 1 Ga. L. Rev. 49 (1927). For comment, ‘‘Are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac State Actors? State Action, Due Process, and Nonjudicial Foreclosure,’’ see 65 Emory L.J. 107 (2015). ## 1976 Constitution. Art. VI, Sec. XIV, Para. II. ## Applicability of Exception Proviso. — The exception of this paragraph applied to condemnation proceedings under former Civil Code 1895, § 4651 (see now O.C.G.A. § 22-1-8). Whitney v. Central Ga. Power Co., 134 Ga. 213, 67 S.E. 197, 19 Ann. Cas. 982 (1910) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II). Case of ejectment or complaint for ## Land. If the allegations in a petition are sufficient to show that the plaintiff can recover on the plaintiff’s title alone without the aid of a court of equity, the case is one of ejectment or complaint for land; but if this is not the case, and equitable aid is necessary, the petition is equitable in character. Cook v. Grimsley, 175 Ga. 138, 165 S.E. 30 (1932). When court is without jurisdiction ## To Grant Equitable Relief. In a suit which is strictly an action respecting the title to lands, and which is brought in the county in which the land is situated, the court has no jurisdiction to grant equitable relief as to a defendant who is a resident of another county in this state. Cook v. Grimsley, 175 Ga. 138, 165 S.E. 30 (1932). Basis of action ascertained from ## Pleader’s Intention. A rule, perhaps the cardinal rule, by which to determine whether an action is based on equity or title to land is to ascertain the intention of the pleader. Where the pleader’s intention is not clearly manifest as to what form of action is relied on in the petition, the courts will prima facie presume that the pleader’s purpose was to serve his best interest and will construe the pleadings so as to uphold and not to defeat the action. Cook v. Grimsley, 175 Ga. 138, 165 S.E. 30 (1932). not legally deprive a county of its county site. County of DeKalb v. City of Atlanta, 132 Ga. 727, 65 S.E. 72 (1909). ## An Act Changing County Lines can-Merger of Equity and Common Law. — This paragraph was not affected by merger of equitable and common law jurisdictions of superior court. Clayton v. Stetson, 101 Ga. 634, 28 S.E. 983 (1897) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II). ## Jurisdiction and Venue Distinguished. Jurisdiction means the power of a court to render a binding judgment in the case, and venue means the place of trial. Williams v. Fuller, 244 Ga. 846, 262 S.E.2d 135 (1979). General Assembly cannot declare individual resident of another county ## In Contradiction of the General Law. The General Assembly has no right to provide that a natural person, an individual, who lives and has a domicile and residence in one county, and a domicile and residence is fixed there under the law as it stands, should be deemed also to be a resident, for certain purposes, of another county. A general law may fix the general place of residence; but when a person has a residence and domicile fixed and established in accordance with the law, the General Consideration (Cont’d) legislature cannot declare that the person may also be a resident of another county at the same time. Youmans v. Hickman, 179 Ga. 684, 177 S.E. 238 (1934). Special finding by jury as to owner- ## Ship in Actions for Trespass. In actions for trespass to realty, ownership of the premises is incidentally involved, and while in such cases a special finding by the jury as to ownership is not required, the incorporation of such a finding into the verdict will not vitiate it, if the verdict is in other particulars regular and proper. Anderson v. Black, 191 Ga. 627, 13 S.E.2d 650 (1941). ## Venue Properly Established. Because a neighbor’s claims were incidental to that of the adjoining landowner’s, the suit was properly brought in the neighbor’s home county, thus supporting a denial of the neighbor’s motion for a change of venue. Norton v. Holcomb, 285 Ga. App. 78, 646 S.E.2d 94 (2007), cert. denied, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 654 (Ga. 2007). Cited in Madronah Sales Co. v. Wilburn, 180 Ga. 837, 181 S.E. 173 (1935); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hall, 191 Ga. 294, 12 S.E.2d 53 (1940); Anderson v. Black, 199 Ga. 59, 33 S.E.2d 298 (1945); Brown v. Mathis, 201 Ga. 740, 41 S.E.2d 137 (1947); Brunswick Peninsular Corp. v. Daugharty, 203 Ga. 454, 47 S.E.2d 275 (1948); Larkins v. Boyd, 205 Ga. 69, 52 S.E.2d 307 (1949); Dooley v. Scoggins, 208 Ga. 200, 66 S.E.2d 62 (1951); Dependable Ins. Co. v. Gibbs, 218 Ga. 305, 127 S.E.2d 454 (1962); Register v. Stone’s Indep. Oil Distribs., 122 Ga. App. 335, 177 S.E.2d 92 (1970); Southall v. Carter, 229 Ga. 240, 190 S.E.2d 517 (1972); Peacock v. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 241 Ga. 280, 244 S.E.2d 816 (1978); Tingle v. Georgia Power Co., 147 Ga. App. 775, 250 S.E.2d 497 (1978); Lake Lanier Islands Dev. Auth. v. Village Harbor, Inc., 152 Ga. App. 705, 264 S.E.2d 23 (1979). Actions at Law lish title and suits to recover land. — There is a distinction between suits to establish title to land or to establish the evidence of title, and suits to recover the land upon legal title; the former being suits in equity, and the latter actions at law. Owenby v. Stancil, 190 Ga. 50, 8 S.E.2d 7 (1940). ## Distinction Between Suits to estab-Place of Trial. Generally, cases respecting title to land shall be tried in the superior court where the land lies. Pearson v. George, 211 Ga. 18, 83 S.E.2d 593 (1954). Law governing title and disposition of land is exclusively subject to laws of the state where it is situated. — Such a rule is essential to the sovereignty of the state over the land within its borders. Where a court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of a suit, the parties cannot waive it. King v. King, 203 Ga. 811, 48 S.E.2d 465 (1948). This paragraph concerns actions at law, such as ejectment and statutory substitutes, in which the plaintiff asserts a presently enforceable legal title against the possession of the defendant, for the recovery of land or recovery of the land and mesne profits. This paragraph does not apply to suits in equity to establish title to land or to establish evidence of title. Owenby v. Stancil, 190 Ga. 50, 8 S.E.2d 7 (1940); Stolaman v. Stolaman, 220 Ga. 799, 142 S.E.2d 70 (1965); Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. v. City of Thomasville, 226 Ga. 4, 172 S.E.2d 612 (1970) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II). The test as to whether a suit to recover land is one of ejectment and is a ‘‘case respecting title to land’’ within the purview of the venue provisions of this paragraph is whether the plaintiff can recover on the plaintiff’s title alone or whether the plaintiff must ask the aid of a court of equity in order to recover. Owenby v. Stancil, 190 Ga. 50, 8 S.E.2d 7 (1940); Screven County v. Reddy, 208 Ga. 730, 69 S.E.2d 186 (1952); White v. Gordon, 213 Ga. 730, 101 S.E.2d 759 (1958); State Hwy. Dep’t v. Georgia S. & Fla. Ry., 216 Ga. 547, 117 S.E.2d 897 (1961); Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. v. City of Thomasville, 226 Ga. 4, 172 S.E.2d 612 (1970) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II). Action in ejectment brought in ## Proper County. An action in ejectment wherein the plaintiff claims title to the land in question on the basis of the plaintiff’s abstract of title, which the plaintiff incorporated in the plaintiff’s petition by amendment, and seeks to recover the described tract of land and damages for the cutting of timber thereon, sought no equitable relief and was properly brought in the county where the land lies. White v. Gordon, 213 Ga. 730, 101 S.E.2d 759 (1958). ## Statutory Adverse Possession. A landowner’s suit is clearly not in equity where the landowner seeks to establish legal title by adverse possession as a matter of law in reliance on a statute. Venue is constitutionally in the county in which the land lies, as provided in O.C.G.A. § 44-5-168(b)(1). Hayes v. Howell, 251 Ga. 580, 308 S.E.2d 170 (1983). A statutory partition action under former Code 1933, § 85-1504 (see now O.C.G.A. § 44-6-160) was a case ‘‘respecting title to land’’ under this paragraph since it can bestow title on both parties and divest both parties of title, and must be brought in the county where the land laid. Schuehler v. Pait, 239 Ga. 520, 238 S.E.2d 65 (1977) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II). A petition stating a case at law for recovery of land, where no equitable relief is sought, is a case respecting title to land, and under this paragraph properly brought in the county where the land lies. Strickland v. Jenkins, 198 Ga. 15, 31 S.E.2d 18 (1944). Other proceeding adjudicating title to property properly brought in ## County Where Land Lies. A petition by the widow and sole heir at law of a named person who died intestate with no administration on his estate, alleging that before her husband’s death, he had purchased a tract of land, paid the purchase money, and entered into possession of the land, and that since his death other claimants had entered into possession thereof, where the plaintiff merely sought to recover the land with mesne profits, and the suit was filed in the county where the land lies, stated a cause of action. Strickland v. Jenkins, 198 Ga. 15, 31 S.E.2d 18 (1944). The allegations of the petition showing an actual controversy, in which petitioner and one of the defendants were claiming title to realty under separate chains of title, coupled with a prayer for a declaratory judgment adjudicating title to the property to be in petitioner, were sufficient to constitute an action respecting title to land under this paragraph and the petition was properly brought in the county where the land lies. Shaw v. Crawford, 207 Ga. 67, 60 S.E.2d 143 (1950) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II). Situation where action cannot be ## Brought in County Land Lies. Where a petition shows that the defendant has legal title to the land and seeks to set up a perfect equity in the plaintiff, and prays that the property be decreed to be that of the plaintiff, such action cannot be brought in the county where the land lies if the defendant is not a resident thereof. Screven County v. Reddy, 208 Ga. 730, 69 S.E.2d 186 (1952). Equitable Actions A suit to establish title to land, or to establish the evidence of title, is one that must be brought in equity, but suits to recover land upon legal title are actions at law. The common test as to whether an action to recover land is an action respecting title to land within the venue provision of the Constitution is whether the plaintiff can recover on the plaintiff’s title alone, or whether the plaintiff must seek the aid of a court of equity in order to recover. Payne v. Terhune, 212 Ga. 169, 91 S.E.2d 348 (1956). ings are not cases respecting title to ## Nonjudicial Foreclosure Proceedland. A suit seeking a rule nisi to require defendants to show cause why a nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding should not be allowed to proceed is not a case respecting title to land within the meaning of this paragraph, and is without any jurisdictional basis in the Supreme Court. Graham v. Tallent, 235 Ga. 47, 218 S.E.2d 799 (1975) (see Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. II). Striking prayer for equitable relief and praying for legal remedy does not result in suit respecting title to > The printed notes continue for 8,429 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/ga/art-vi-sec-ii-para-ii.md?notes=all&start=11710