Harkins v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Harkins v. Boyd

221 S.E.2d 207, 136 Ga. App. 365, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1352

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 2, 1975

Docket51084

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 221 S.E.2d 207 (Harkins v. Boyd) 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

Harkins v. Boyd, 221 S.E.2d 207, 136 Ga. App. 365, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1352 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, Judge.

In this dispossessory proceeding predicated on nonpayment of rent, the tenant appeals from an adverse judgment.

1. "Prerequisite to the right to seek a dispossessory warrant is a demand for possession of property by the landlord. Code § 61-301.” Terrell v. Griffith, 129 Ga. App. 675, 677 (200 SE2d 485). Relying upon this principle, tenant contends landlord failed to show that this prerequisite demand for the premises was made. Thus, tenant continues, the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment. We disagree. Landlord introduced in evidence a letter calling upon tenant to pay the two months rent then due or be "removed” under a dispossessory warrant. Landlord testified this letter was mailed to tenant. The denial of tenant’s motion was therefore not erroneous. See Bussell v. Swift, 50 Ga. App. 148 (177 SE 277).

2. Tenant’s assertion that this demand letter was inadmissible is without merit. The rules governing the admissibility of business records apply to letters made in the regular course of business. See 32 CJS 976, Evidence § 703.

3. The Supreme Court disposed of the remaining enumeration of error by transferring the appeal to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Clark, Judge.

In this dispossessory proceeding predicated on nonpayment of rent, the tenant appeals from an adverse judgment.

1. "Prerequisite to the right to seek a dispossessory warrant is a demand for possession of property by the landlord. Code § 61-301.” Terrell v. Griffith, 129 Ga. App. 675, 677 (200 SE2d 485). Relying upon this principle, tenant contends landlord failed to show that this prerequisite demand for the premises was made. Thus, tenant continues, the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment. We disagree. Landlord introduced in evidence a letter calling upon tenant to pay the two months rent then due or be "removed” under a dispossessory warrant. Landlord testified this letter was mailed to tenant. The denial of tenant’s motion was therefore not erroneous. See Bussell v. Swift, 50 Ga. App. 148 (177 SE 277).

2. Tenant’s assertion that this demand letter was inadmissible is without merit. The rules governing the admissibility of business records apply to letters made in the regular course of business. See 32 CJS 976, Evidence § 703.

3. The Supreme Court disposed of the remaining enumeration of error by transferring the appeal to this court.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 S.E.2d 207, 136 Ga. App. 365, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harkins-v-boyd-gactapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack