Folds v. Harris

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Folds v. Harris

129 S.E. 664, 34 Ga. App. 445, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 302

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 6, 1925

Docket16550

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 129 S.E. 664 (Folds v. Harris) 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

Folds v. Harris, 129 S.E. 664, 34 Ga. App. 445, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 302 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled.

2. “The action of the judge of the superior court sustaining the certiorari has the effect of granting a new trial, and, this [446]*446being the first grant of a new trial and the evidence not having demanded the verdict, under the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court the grant of the certiorari will not be set aside. Murray v. Stribling, 28 Ga. App. 211 (110 S. E. 761); McCall v. Stubbs, 28 Ga. App. 308 (111 S. E. 63); Darley v. Williams, 28 Ga. App. 323 (111 S. E. 83). See also Maynard v. American Ry. Express Co., 29 Ga. App. 329 (115 S. E. 35).” Daniell v. McRee, 31 Ga. App. 210 (2) (120 S. E. 448). “This being the first grant of a new trial, and the verdict not haying been demanded absolutely by the evidence, this court, without undertaking to make any adjudication with respect to the reason assigned by the trial judge as the basis of his action, will affirm the judgment. Civil Code, § 5585; Cox v. Grady, ante, 368 (64 S. E. 262); McCain v. College Park, 112 Ga. 701 (37 S. E. 971); Brantley Co. v. Bank of Waycross, Id. 532 (37 S. E. 737); Harvey v. Bowles, Id. 363 (37 S. E. 363); Weinkle v. Brunswick R. Co., 107 Ga. 367 (33 S. E. 471); Macon Street R. Co. v. Jones, 116 Ga. 351 (42 S. E. 468); Allen v. Lumpkin, Id. 777 (43 S. E. 54).” Van Giesen v. Queen Ins. Co., 132 Ga. 515 (1).

3. Where the relation of landlord and cropper exists, “the title to all crops grown on the land remains in the landlord until there has been an actual division and settlement wherebjr he receives in full his share of the products.” De Loach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884 (47 S. E. 204); Civil Code (1910), §§ 3705, 3707.

4. Under the principles announced above and the particular facts of this case, the court did not err either in sustaining the certiorari or in directing that if the evidence is substantially the same on another trial, the property should be found not subject to the mortgage execution. See, in this connection, Moore v. Southern Express Co., 9 Ga. App. 487 (71 S. E. 762).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled.

2. “The action of the judge of the superior court sustaining the certiorari has the effect of granting a new trial, and, this [446]*446being the first grant of a new trial and the evidence not having demanded the verdict, under the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court the grant of the certiorari will not be set aside. Murray v. Stribling, 28 Ga. App. 211 (110 S. E. 761); McCall v. Stubbs, 28 Ga. App. 308 (111 S. E. 63); Darley v. Williams, 28 Ga. App. 323 (111 S. E. 83). See also Maynard v. American Ry. Express Co., 29 Ga. App. 329 (115 S. E. 35).” Daniell v. McRee, 31 Ga. App. 210 (2) (120 S. E. 448). “This being the first grant of a new trial, and the verdict not haying been demanded absolutely by the evidence, this court, without undertaking to make any adjudication with respect to the reason assigned by the trial judge as the basis of his action, will affirm the judgment. Civil Code, § 5585; Cox v. Grady, ante, 368 (64 S. E. 262); McCain v. College Park, 112 Ga. 701 (37 S. E. 971); Brantley Co. v. Bank of Waycross, Id. 532 (37 S. E. 737); Harvey v. Bowles, Id. 363 (37 S. E. 363); Weinkle v. Brunswick R. Co., 107 Ga. 367 (33 S. E. 471); Macon Street R. Co. v. Jones, 116 Ga. 351 (42 S. E. 468); Allen v. Lumpkin, Id. 777 (43 S. E. 54).” Van Giesen v. Queen Ins. Co., 132 Ga. 515 (1).

3. Where the relation of landlord and cropper exists, “the title to all crops grown on the land remains in the landlord until there has been an actual division and settlement wherebjr he receives in full his share of the products.” De Loach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884 (47 S. E. 204); Civil Code (1910), §§ 3705, 3707.

4. Under the principles announced above and the particular facts of this case, the court did not err either in sustaining the certiorari or in directing that if the evidence is substantially the same on another trial, the property should be found not subject to the mortgage execution. See, in this connection, Moore v. Southern Express Co., 9 Ga. App. 487 (71 S. E. 762).

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E. 664, 34 Ga. App. 445, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/folds-v-harris-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack