Byrd v. Piha

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Byrd v. Piha

152 S.E. 624, 41 Ga. App. 262, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 525

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 5, 1930

Docket20055

StatusPublished

This text of 152 S.E. 624 (Byrd v. Piha) 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

Byrd v. Piha, 152 S.E. 624, 41 Ga. App. 262, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 525 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bioodwobth, J.

In transferring this ease to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said: “A tenant instituted an action to enjoin his landlord from declaring forfeiture of the lease and taking possession of the property. On exception to an order granting a temporary injunction the judgment of the trial court was reversed. Byrd v. Piha, 165 Ga. 397 (141 S. E. 48). Subsequently an amendment to the defendant’s [263]*263original answer set up a money demand for double rent. On the trial all questions were eliminated except the defendant’s right to double rent.” We agree with the statement of the Supreme Court that “on the trial all questions were eliminated except the defendant’s right to double rent.” This being true, under the facts of the case the trial judge properly directed a verdict against the allowance, of double rent.

Decided March 5, 1930. Randolph, Parlcer & Portson, for plaintiffs in error. Alston, Alston, Poster & Moise, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bioodwobth, J.

In transferring this ease to the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court said: “A tenant instituted an action to enjoin his landlord from declaring forfeiture of the lease and taking possession of the property. On exception to an order granting a temporary injunction the judgment of the trial court was reversed. Byrd v. Piha, 165 Ga. 397 (141 S. E. 48). Subsequently an amendment to the defendant’s [263]*263original answer set up a money demand for double rent. On the trial all questions were eliminated except the defendant’s right to double rent.” We agree with the statement of the Supreme Court that “on the trial all questions were eliminated except the defendant’s right to double rent.” This being true, under the facts of the case the trial judge properly directed a verdict against the allowance, of double rent.

Decided March 5, 1930. Randolph, Parlcer & Portson, for plaintiffs in error. Alston, Alston, Poster & Moise, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 624, 41 Ga. App. 262, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/byrd-v-piha-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack