Deloach v. Delk

47 S.E. 204, 119 Ga. 884, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 392
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 30, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 47 S.E. 204 (Deloach v. Delk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deloach v. Delk, 47 S.E. 204, 119 Ga. 884, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 392 (Ga. 1904).

Opinion

Turner, J.

1. 'Where, under the terms of a contract between an owner of land and another who agrees to cultivate it on shares, the relation of landlord and cropper is created, the title to all crops grown on the land remains in the landlord until there has been an actual division and settlement whereby he receives in full his share of the produce. Civil Code, § 3131; Wadley v. Williams, 75 Ga. 272; Almand v. Scott, 80 Ga. 95. That the cropper furnishes the labor necessary to the making of the crops, and is to receive a portion thereof as compensation for his services, does not place him in the situation of a partner having an undivided interest in the product of his labor. Padgett v. Ford, 117 Ga. 510, and cit. So, if the owner of the land wrongfully refuses to comply with his obligations in the premises, the remedy of the cropper is to assert a laborer’s lien on the crops grown by him (McElmurray v. Turner, 86 Ga. 215); for he can not maintain against the landlord an action of trover, the title to the crops being in the latter. Bryant v. Pugh, 86 Ga. 525, 529.

2. In no view of the evidence in the present case was the plaintiff entitled to prevail in the action of bail-trover brought against the defendants ; and this being so, the court below erred in not setting aside, on certiorari, the verdict returned against them in the city court wherein the suit was instituted.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Kelley v. Moody
167 S.E. 101 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Comar Oil Co. v. Richter
1927 OK 357 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)
Atlanta Trust Co. v. Oliver-McDonald Co.
136 S.E. 824 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Folds v. Harris
129 S.E. 664 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Collier v. Pritchett
118 S.E. 444 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Ellis, McKinnon & Brown v. Hopps
118 S.E. 583 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Payne v. Trammell
115 S.E. 923 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Smart v. Hill
116 S.E. 66 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Kirkland v. Wallace
114 S.E. 649 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Welch v. Lindsey
107 S.E. 891 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Parks v. Langley
88 S.E. 695 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Dawson v. Blitch
76 S.E. 596 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Hall & Ham v. Stone
75 S.E. 140 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Fountain v. Fountain
73 S.E. 1096 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1912)
Harley v. Davis
66 S.E. 1102 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Vinson v. State
52 S.E. 79 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Dawson National Bank v. Ward & Gurr
48 S.E. 313 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
47 S.E. 204, 119 Ga. 884, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deloach-v-delk-ga-1904.