King v. Pattillo

Court of Appeals of Georgia

King v. Pattillo

90 S.E. 1033, 19 Ga. App. 59, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 34

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 8, 1916

Docket7437

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 S.E. 1033 (King v. Pattillo) 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

King v. Pattillo, 90 S.E. 1033, 19 Ga. App. 59, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 34 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. Under the liberal rules of pleading and practice in the municipal court of Atlanta, the process, with the account sued on attached thereto, was not subject to the general or special demurrers interposed, and the trial judge did nor err in overruling them.

2. Contracts creating the relation of landlord and tenant for any time not exceeding one year may be by parol. Civil Code, § 3693. The evidence authorized a finding that, after the expiration of' the original written lease between the parties, a new parol contract was entered into by them for the rent of the property for another year, and that this contract was breached by the defendant, the lessee, without sufficient cause, after he had occupied the premises for nine months under the new verbal contract; and that accordingly he was liable for rent for the three remaining months of the unexpired term, but as the plaintiff, for some reason not disclosed in the record, sued for two months rent only, the trial judge, exercising the functions of both judge and jury, properly gave judgment for that amount only.

3. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Hodges, J., absent.

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

Broyles, J.

1. Under the liberal rules of pleading and practice in the municipal court of Atlanta, the process, with the account sued on attached thereto, was not subject to the general or special demurrers interposed, and the trial judge did nor err in overruling them.

2. Contracts creating the relation of landlord and tenant for any time not exceeding one year may be by parol. Civil Code, § 3693. The evidence authorized a finding that, after the expiration of' the original written lease between the parties, a new parol contract was entered into by them for the rent of the property for another year, and that this contract was breached by the defendant, the lessee, without sufficient cause, after he had occupied the premises for nine months under the new verbal contract; and that accordingly he was liable for rent for the three remaining months of the unexpired term, but as the plaintiff, for some reason not disclosed in the record, sued for two months rent only, the trial judge, exercising the functions of both judge and jury, properly gave judgment for that amount only.

3. The judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Hodges, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 1033, 19 Ga. App. 59, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-pattillo-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack