Dyer v. Cannon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dyer v. Cannon

110 S.E. 415, 27 Ga. App. 793, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 431

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 14, 1921

Docket12751

StatusPublished

This text of 110 S.E. 415 (Dyer v. Cannon) 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

Dyer v. Cannon, 110 S.E. 415, 27 Ga. App. 793, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 431 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. A distress warrant may be issued before the rent is due, if a tenant is seeking to remove his crops from the rented premises without paying the rent. Little v. Lary, 12 Ga. App. 754 (78 S. E. 470), and cases cited.

2. It was not error to overrule the motion for a continuance.

3. There was evidence authorizing the jury to find that the tenant was removing his crop from the rented premises before the rent was due, without the landlord’s consent and without paying his rent, and the evidence authorized the verdict rendered for the sum claimed as rent. Neither upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, nor upon any other ground did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

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

Luke, J.

1. A distress warrant may be issued before the rent is due, if a tenant is seeking to remove his crops from the rented premises without paying the rent. Little v. Lary, 12 Ga. App. 754 (78 S. E. 470), and cases cited.

2. It was not error to overrule the motion for a continuance.

3. There was evidence authorizing the jury to find that the tenant was removing his crop from the rented premises before the rent was due, without the landlord’s consent and without paying his rent, and the evidence authorized the verdict rendered for the sum claimed as rent. Neither upon the ground of newly discovered evidence, nor upon any other ground did the court err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 415, 27 Ga. App. 793, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyer-v-cannon-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

2. It was not error to overrule the motion for a continuance.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack