Henry v. Perry

Supreme Court of Georgia

Henry v. Perry

36 S.E. 87, 110 Ga. 630, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 602

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 11, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 36 S.E. 87 (Henry v. Perry) 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

Henry v. Perry, 36 S.E. 87, 110 Ga. 630, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 602 (Ga. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

This was a proceeding instituted for the purpose of evicting in a summary way the defendant as a tenant at suf[631]*631ferance of the plaintiff. It is indispensable to the.maintenance of such a proceeding that the relation of landlord and tenant should exist between the plaintiff and the defendant. Civil Code, §4813; Watson v. Toliver, 103 Ga. 123; Story v. Epps, 105 Ga. 504. The evidence in the present case did not show that the relation of landlord and tenánt had ever existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. On the contrary, it appeared that the defendant had entered into possession under one who had obtained from the owner an option to purchase the land, and who with his permission entered uponjFe land for the purpose of prospecting for minerals during the continuance of the option. Although the time limited in the option had expired when the proceeding to evict the defendant was instituted, this did not cause the relation of landlord and tenant to arise between the person who had been put in possession by the holder of the option, and one who was the successor in title of the owner who had given the option. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff was unwarranted, and the judge erred in not granting a new trial. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

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

Cobb, J.

This was a proceeding instituted for the purpose of evicting in a summary way the defendant as a tenant at suf[631]*631ferance of the plaintiff. It is indispensable to the.maintenance of such a proceeding that the relation of landlord and tenant should exist between the plaintiff and the defendant. Civil Code, §4813; Watson v. Toliver, 103 Ga. 123; Story v. Epps, 105 Ga. 504. The evidence in the present case did not show that the relation of landlord and tenánt had ever existed between the plaintiff and the defendant. On the contrary, it appeared that the defendant had entered into possession under one who had obtained from the owner an option to purchase the land, and who with his permission entered uponjFe land for the purpose of prospecting for minerals during the continuance of the option. Although the time limited in the option had expired when the proceeding to evict the defendant was instituted, this did not cause the relation of landlord and tenant to arise between the person who had been put in possession by the holder of the option, and one who was the successor in title of the owner who had given the option. The verdict in favor of the plaintiff was unwarranted, and the judge erred in not granting a new trial. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.E. 87, 110 Ga. 630, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-perry-ga-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack