Beeland v. Alston

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Beeland v. Alston

114 S.E.2d 545, 101 Ga. App. 584, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 950

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 3, 1960

Docket38274

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 114 S.E.2d 545 (Beeland v. Alston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beeland v. Alston, 114 S.E.2d 545, 101 Ga. App. 584, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 950 (Ga. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Frankum, Judge.

1. Where, as in the instant case, an assignment of error is to the trial court’s direction of a verdict as being “contrary to law” without a further averment that there were questions of fact which should have been submitted to a jury, the assignment is insufficient to raise a question for determination before this court. Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 177 Ga. 734 (171 S. E. 293); Chandler v. Pennington, 89 Ga. App. 676 (80 S. E. 2d 843); Jacoby v. Jacoby, 96 Ga. App. 87 (99 S. E. 2d 473); Slater v. Brown, 94 Ga. App. 883 (96 S. E. 2d 518). But such assignment is sufficient to require a review of the judgment in so far as it re-[585]*585suited from an antecedent ruling on which error is also assigned. Thompson v. Dove, 213 Ga. 819 (102 S. E. 2d 43); Beale v. Grimsley, 97 Ga. App. 291 (103 S. E. 2d 94).

Decided May 3, 1960. Greer, Henning & Morris, Richard G. Greer, for plaintiff in error. Alston, Sibley, Miller, Spann ■& Shackelford, Hewitt H. Covington, contra.

2. It was not error for the trial court to strike the plhintiff in error’s plea of estoppel when there was no allegation showing a concealment of facts which resulted in the party asserting the estoppel acting to his detriment. Code § 38-116; Tinsley v. Rice, 105 Ga. 285 (31 S. E. 174); Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. App. 239 (94 S. E. 2d 145). The acts of a landlord leasing and accepting rent from a corporation for the same premises for which rent is sought against the plaintiff in error does not create an estoppel against the landlord to deny a release of the plaintiff in error as a tenant. The plaintiff in error was bound-to pay the rent by a contract. While such a plea may be a proper defense at law, it does not show the conduct led the plaintiff in error to act to his detriment. The plaintiff in error’s original answer contained almost the verbatim allegations of his plea of estoppel and placed in issue whether or not the landlord had released the plaintiff in error as a tenant. Consequently, the striking of the plea as an amended answer would be harmless.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

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

Frankum, Judge.

1. Where, as in the instant case, an assignment of error is to the trial court’s direction of a verdict as being “contrary to law” without a further averment that there were questions of fact which should have been submitted to a jury, the assignment is insufficient to raise a question for determination before this court. Hamilton Nat. Bank v. Robertson, 177 Ga. 734 (171 S. E. 293); Chandler v. Pennington, 89 Ga. App. 676 (80 S. E. 2d 843); Jacoby v. Jacoby, 96 Ga. App. 87 (99 S. E. 2d 473); Slater v. Brown, 94 Ga. App. 883 (96 S. E. 2d 518). But such assignment is sufficient to require a review of the judgment in so far as it re-[585]*585suited from an antecedent ruling on which error is also assigned. Thompson v. Dove, 213 Ga. 819 (102 S. E. 2d 43); Beale v. Grimsley, 97 Ga. App. 291 (103 S. E. 2d 94).

Decided May 3, 1960. Greer, Henning & Morris, Richard G. Greer, for plaintiff in error. Alston, Sibley, Miller, Spann ■& Shackelford, Hewitt H. Covington, contra.

2. It was not error for the trial court to strike the plhintiff in error’s plea of estoppel when there was no allegation showing a concealment of facts which resulted in the party asserting the estoppel acting to his detriment. Code § 38-116; Tinsley v. Rice, 105 Ga. 285 (31 S. E. 174); Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga. App. 239 (94 S. E. 2d 145). The acts of a landlord leasing and accepting rent from a corporation for the same premises for which rent is sought against the plaintiff in error does not create an estoppel against the landlord to deny a release of the plaintiff in error as a tenant. The plaintiff in error was bound-to pay the rent by a contract. While such a plea may be a proper defense at law, it does not show the conduct led the plaintiff in error to act to his detriment. The plaintiff in error’s original answer contained almost the verbatim allegations of his plea of estoppel and placed in issue whether or not the landlord had released the plaintiff in error as a tenant. Consequently, the striking of the plea as an amended answer would be harmless.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P. J., Townsend and Carlisle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.E.2d 545, 101 Ga. App. 584, 1960 Ga. App. LEXIS 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beeland-v-alston-gactapp-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack