Blackwelder v. Moody

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Blackwelder v. Moody

130 S.E. 367, 34 Ga. App. 493, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 343

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 10, 1925

Docket16652

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.E. 367 (Blackwelder v. Moody) 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

Blackwelder v. Moody, 130 S.E. 367, 34 Ga. App. 493, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 343 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Ltjke, J.

This being a proceeding to foreclose a half-cropper’s laborer’s lien, and it not appearing, either from the affidavit of foreclosure or from the evidence of plaintiff, who was the only witness sworn, that the defendant was bound, under his contract, to furnish the plaintiff with supplies, the following charge of the court was error: “On the question of advances, I charge you that where a contract of this kind is entered into, and the landlord undertakes and agrees to furnish the cropper supplies sufficient to aid him in making and gathering a crop, he would be bound to furnish such necessary supplies, if you find that they were necessary and that they were reasonable supplies,” . . and that if the landlord did so fail to furnish such supplies, the half-cropper would be relieved from his contract. This charge was not authorized either by the pleading or the evidence, and was harmful error. Commercial Bank v. Dasher, 24 Ga. App. 736 (102 S. E. 177), and citations. See also Harvey v. Lewis, 19 Ga. App. 655 (91 S. E. 1052).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Ltjke, J.

This being a proceeding to foreclose a half-cropper’s laborer’s lien, and it not appearing, either from the affidavit of foreclosure or from the evidence of plaintiff, who was the only witness sworn, that the defendant was bound, under his contract, to furnish the plaintiff with supplies, the following charge of the court was error: “On the question of advances, I charge you that where a contract of this kind is entered into, and the landlord undertakes and agrees to furnish the cropper supplies sufficient to aid him in making and gathering a crop, he would be bound to furnish such necessary supplies, if you find that they were necessary and that they were reasonable supplies,” . . and that if the landlord did so fail to furnish such supplies, the half-cropper would be relieved from his contract. This charge was not authorized either by the pleading or the evidence, and was harmful error. Commercial Bank v. Dasher, 24 Ga. App. 736 (102 S. E. 177), and citations. See also Harvey v. Lewis, 19 Ga. App. 655 (91 S. E. 1052).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.E. 367, 34 Ga. App. 493, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackwelder-v-moody-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack