Collins v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Collins v. Moore

145 S.E. 526, 38 Ga. App. 761, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 441

DecidedNovember 16, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 145 S.E. 526 (Collins v. Moore) 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

Collins v. Moore, 145 S.E. 526, 38 Ga. App. 761, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 441 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Under the law of' this case as enunciated by the decision of this court upon a former review thereof, .and under the evidence, which was substantially the same upon the controlling issues as on the former trial, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was demanded, and the court did not err in so directing. Moore v. Collins, 36 Ga. App. 701 (138 S. E. 81).

2. It appears without dispute from the testimony of the defendant that he had held possession of the premises in dispute for two years after the institution of the eviction proceedings on account of nonpayment of rent due under a written contract between the parties, fixing the monthly rental to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. The contention of the defendant that the direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for double rent for that period was unauthorized, in that no proof was submitted to establish the amount which plaintiff was entitled to recover, is therefore without merit.

Judgment affirmed 'on main hill of exceptions; cross-hill dismissed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

1. Under the law of' this case as enunciated by the decision of this court upon a former review thereof, .and under the evidence, which was substantially the same upon the controlling issues as on the former trial, the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was demanded, and the court did not err in so directing. Moore v. Collins, 36 Ga. App. 701 (138 S. E. 81).

2. It appears without dispute from the testimony of the defendant that he had held possession of the premises in dispute for two years after the institution of the eviction proceedings on account of nonpayment of rent due under a written contract between the parties, fixing the monthly rental to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. The contention of the defendant that the direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for double rent for that period was unauthorized, in that no proof was submitted to establish the amount which plaintiff was entitled to recover, is therefore without merit.

Judgment affirmed 'on main hill of exceptions; cross-hill dismissed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E. 526, 38 Ga. App. 761, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collins-v-moore-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack