Brand v. Wall Realty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Brand v. Wall Realty Co.

23 S.E.2d 454, 68 Ga. App. 693, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 198

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 4, 1942

Docket29651.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 S.E.2d 454 (Brand v. Wall Realty Co.) 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

Brand v. Wall Realty Co., 23 S.E.2d 454, 68 Ga. App. 693, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 198 (Ga. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinions

Felton, J.

In an action by a tenant against a real-estate company as landlord, to recover damages resulting from alleged defects in rented premises, where it positively appears from the testimony of the tenant herself that the company was only the agent for somebody else, and that it did not purport to be renting it to her for itself, but for another, and where rent receipts were signed by the company “as agents for the owner,” the first of' which showed the owner to be one other than the company and where there is no other evidence authorizing a finding by a jury that the real-estate company entered into a rental contract with the tenant as landlord and in its own name, a verdict for the real-estate company was demanded, even though the tenant was not informed as. to the ownership of the property rented, either voluntarily or in response to request for the information (which was not made). It was not error to direct a verdict for the defendant and to overrule the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, J., concurs.

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

Felton, J.

In an action by a tenant against a real-estate company as landlord, to recover damages resulting from alleged defects in rented premises, where it positively appears from the testimony of the tenant herself that the company was only the agent for somebody else, and that it did not purport to be renting it to her for itself, but for another, and where rent receipts were signed by the company “as agents for the owner,” the first of' which showed the owner to be one other than the company and where there is no other evidence authorizing a finding by a jury that the real-estate company entered into a rental contract with the tenant as landlord and in its own name, a verdict for the real-estate company was demanded, even though the tenant was not informed as. to the ownership of the property rented, either voluntarily or in response to request for the information (which was not made). It was not error to direct a verdict for the defendant and to overrule the plaintiff’s motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.E.2d 454, 68 Ga. App. 693, 1942 Ga. App. LEXIS 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brand-v-wall-realty-co-gactapp-1942.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack