Houseworth v. Crews

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Houseworth v. Crews

116 S.E. 217, 29 Ga. App. 579, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 127

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1923

Docket13652

StatusPublished

This text of 116 S.E. 217 (Houseworth v. Crews) 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

Houseworth v. Crews, 116 S.E. 217, 29 Ga. App. 579, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. This was an action by one of two owners in common of personalty against the other, to recover on half of the rents and profits of the common property; and, there being no evidence of actual ouster, or of exclusive possession by the latter after demand by the former, or of express notice by the latter to the former of adverse possession, there was no error in the charge of the court which limited the plaintiff’s recovery to one half of whatever rents the defendant actually received. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3724, 3725; Smith v. Smith, 141 Ga. 629 (4) (81 S. E. 895); Hunt v. Harris, 149 Ga. 225 (2) (99 S. E. 884).

2. The verdict in favor of the defendant is not without evidence to support it, and, no error having been committed during the trial, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

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.

1. This was an action by one of two owners in common of personalty against the other, to recover on half of the rents and profits of the common property; and, there being no evidence of actual ouster, or of exclusive possession by the latter after demand by the former, or of express notice by the latter to the former of adverse possession, there was no error in the charge of the court which limited the plaintiff’s recovery to one half of whatever rents the defendant actually received. Civil Code (1910), §§ 3724, 3725; Smith v. Smith, 141 Ga. 629 (4) (81 S. E. 895); Hunt v. Harris, 149 Ga. 225 (2) (99 S. E. 884).

2. The verdict in favor of the defendant is not without evidence to support it, and, no error having been committed during the trial, the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 S.E. 217, 29 Ga. App. 579, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houseworth-v-crews-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack