Johnson v. American National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Johnson v. American National Bank

125 S.E. 506, 33 Ga. App. 70, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 732

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 13, 1924

Docket15814

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.E. 506 (Johnson v. American National Bank) 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

Johnson v. American National Bank, 125 S.E. 506, 33 Ga. App. 70, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 732 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. Where it is hot necessary in the first instance to have the contract put into writing, parol evidence is admissible to show that a written contract, since its execution, has been enlarged, diminished, altered, or abrogated, by mutual consent of the parties. Sparks Improvement Co. v. Jones, 4 Ga. App. 61 (3) (60 S. E. 810); Augusta Southern R. Co. v. Smith, 106 Ga. 864, 866 (335 S. E. 28), and authorities cited.

2. A contract creating the relation of landlord and tenant for one year only need not be in writing, but may be by parol. Civil Code (1910), § 3693.

3. Under the foregoing rulings and the facts of the instant case, it was reversible error for the court to exclude the testimony of the defendant (the plaintiff in error), as set forth in the first special ground of the motion for a new trial.

4. Grounds 2 and 3 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are too incomplete to raise any question for the consideration of this court.

5. The court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and in subsequently overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur. H. E. Coates, Marion Turner, for plaintiff in error. Homer Beeland, Lawson & Ware, contra.

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