Anders v. Blount

Supreme Court of Georgia

Anders v. Blount

67 Ga. 41

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1881

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 67 Ga. 41 (Anders v. Blount) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anders v. Blount, 67 Ga. 41 (Ga. 1881).

Pincite

Opinion

Jacicson, Chief Justice.

1. The landlord may distrain for rent as soon as the same is due, or before due if the tenant is seeking to remove his goods from the premises. In this case the landlord does not make affidavit that the tenant is seeking to remove his goods, but simply swears that the rent is due. To this the counter-affidavit of defendaftt is in the words of the statute that the sum distrained for is not due, and defendant gave bond and security for the eventual condemnation money. Code, §4083. .

Therefore, it was error to dismiss the counter-affidavit.

2. After dismissing the counter-affidavit, the court gave judgment for the plaintiff against defendant and his surety on the bond. This was also error, because the entire cage was out of court when the counter-affidavit went out. 61 Ga., 199; 63 Ib., 519.

3. Besides, the record does not show that the case was founded on an unconditional contract in writing, and if not, the court should not have entered up the judgment without proof before a jury. Constitution, 1877; Sup. to Code, §624. 4

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Jacicson, Chief Justice.

1. The landlord may distrain for rent as soon as the same is due, or before due if the tenant is seeking to remove his goods from the premises. In this case the landlord does not make affidavit that the tenant is seeking to remove his goods, but simply swears that the rent is due. To this the counter-affidavit of defendaftt is in the words of the statute that the sum distrained for is not due, and defendant gave bond and security for the eventual condemnation money. Code, §4083. .

Therefore, it was error to dismiss the counter-affidavit.

2. After dismissing the counter-affidavit, the court gave judgment for the plaintiff against defendant and his surety on the bond. This was also error, because the entire cage was out of court when the counter-affidavit went out. 61 Ga., 199; 63 Ib., 519.

3. Besides, the record does not show that the case was founded on an unconditional contract in writing, and if not, the court should not have entered up the judgment without proof before a jury. Constitution, 1877; Sup. to Code, §624. 4

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 Ga. 41, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anders-v-blount-ga-1881.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack