Holmes v. Yalovitz

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Holmes v. Yalovitz

156 S.E. 480, 42 Ga. App. 485, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 21

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1931

Docket20513

StatusPublished

This text of 156 S.E. 480 (Holmes v. Yalovitz) 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

Holmes v. Yalovitz, 156 S.E. 480, 42 Ga. App. 485, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 21 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

After the expiration of a lease, the landlord sued the tenant to recover certain shelving which was situated in the building at the time of the renting but which the tenant stated he did not need and would remove, agreeing to restore the building to its original condition at the expiration of the lease. The plaintiff’s evidence showed, without dispute, that with his consent and approval the tenant removed the shelving to another building belonging to the plaintiff and not in the possession of the defendant, but the property was not thereafter or otherwise accounted for. The evidence further showed that the plaintiff made demand upon the defendant for a return of the property, and that the defendant failed to comply with such demand or to restore the building to its original condition as to shelving. Held: Whether or not the evidence would have been sufficient to establish a breach of contract on the part of the defendant, the evidence failed as a matter of law to show a conversion, and the trial court properly awarded a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

After the expiration of a lease, the landlord sued the tenant to recover certain shelving which was situated in the building at the time of the renting but which the tenant stated he did not need and would remove, agreeing to restore the building to its original condition at the expiration of the lease. The plaintiff’s evidence showed, without dispute, that with his consent and approval the tenant removed the shelving to another building belonging to the plaintiff and not in the possession of the defendant, but the property was not thereafter or otherwise accounted for. The evidence further showed that the plaintiff made demand upon the defendant for a return of the property, and that the defendant failed to comply with such demand or to restore the building to its original condition as to shelving. Held: Whether or not the evidence would have been sufficient to establish a breach of contract on the part of the defendant, the evidence failed as a matter of law to show a conversion, and the trial court properly awarded a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 480, 42 Ga. App. 485, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holmes-v-yalovitz-gactapp-1931.