H. L. Moore Co. v. Eakes

Court of Appeals of Georgia

H. L. Moore Co. v. Eakes

308 S.E.2d 692, 168 Ga. App. 298, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2757

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 19, 1983

Docket66289

StatusPublished

This text of 308 S.E.2d 692 (H. L. Moore Co. v. Eakes) 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

H. L. Moore Co. v. Eakes, 308 S.E.2d 692, 168 Ga. App. 298, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2757 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Appellees Doris and John Eakes sued appellant H. L. Moore Company for farm rent due in 1981 on a lease agreement. The trial court granted the Eakes’ motion for summary judgment and H. L. Moore Company appeals.

We affirm. Appellant’s argument that fact questions remain as to the interpretation of the lease is without merit. The lease agreement provided that “[appellant] shall plant and work said peanuts on the lands, hereinabove described,... in the farm years 1979 and 1981.” This language clearly required that the 80-acre allotment of peanuts be planted solely on the Chance Place, the property described in the agreement, in 1981. Appellees were acting within the provisions of the agreement when they refused to transfer the residue allotment of peanut poundage quota to another farm. The method of determining the amount of peanuts which could be sold at the federal government’s peanut support price was not relevant to the issue, since regardless of the method used the contract specifically required the peanuts to be grown on the Chance Place. Nor can the customs and practices of the farm industry in surrounding areas be used to contradict the plain and unambiguous language of the contract. Daniel & Daniel v. Cosmopolitan Co., 146 Ga. App. 200, 202 (2) (245 [299]*299SE2d 885) (1978); R. S. Helms. v. GST Dev. Co., 135 Ga. App. 845, 847-848 (219 SE2d 458) (1975).

Decided September 19, 1983 Rehearing denied October 5, 1983 Jesse G. Bowles III, for appellant. J. Frank Meyers, John W. Sheffield III, for appellees.

Appellant having failed to raise any issue of material fact, the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Pope, Jr., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Appellees Doris and John Eakes sued appellant H. L. Moore Company for farm rent due in 1981 on a lease agreement. The trial court granted the Eakes’ motion for summary judgment and H. L. Moore Company appeals.

We affirm. Appellant’s argument that fact questions remain as to the interpretation of the lease is without merit. The lease agreement provided that “[appellant] shall plant and work said peanuts on the lands, hereinabove described,... in the farm years 1979 and 1981.” This language clearly required that the 80-acre allotment of peanuts be planted solely on the Chance Place, the property described in the agreement, in 1981. Appellees were acting within the provisions of the agreement when they refused to transfer the residue allotment of peanut poundage quota to another farm. The method of determining the amount of peanuts which could be sold at the federal government’s peanut support price was not relevant to the issue, since regardless of the method used the contract specifically required the peanuts to be grown on the Chance Place. Nor can the customs and practices of the farm industry in surrounding areas be used to contradict the plain and unambiguous language of the contract. Daniel & Daniel v. Cosmopolitan Co., 146 Ga. App. 200, 202 (2) (245 [299]*299SE2d 885) (1978); R. S. Helms. v. GST Dev. Co., 135 Ga. App. 845, 847-848 (219 SE2d 458) (1975).

Decided September 19, 1983 Rehearing denied October 5, 1983 Jesse G. Bowles III, for appellant. J. Frank Meyers, John W. Sheffield III, for appellees.

Appellant having failed to raise any issue of material fact, the trial court properly granted appellees’ motion for summary judgment. OCGA § 9-11-56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, P. J., and Pope, Jr., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 S.E.2d 692, 168 Ga. App. 298, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-l-moore-co-v-eakes-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack