Lewis v. Owens

52 S.E. 333, 124 Ga. 228, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 692
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided November 13, 1905·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Beck, J.

1. Under the contract in this ease, as established by the evidence in the record, the relation of landlord and cropper existed between the plaintiff and defendant; and under the rulings in other cases decided by this court,-the plaintiff'was entitled, upon the completion of her contract of labor, to foreclose her special laborer’s lien against the defendant.

2. And where the undisputed evidence proved that the cropper had completed her contract of labor save that a part of the crop remained un-gathered and was seized by the sheriff under levy of valid process against her landlord, she being thus prevented by the law from completing her contract according to its terms, it was error to dismiss her case “on the ground that the evidence showed the contract of labor had not been completed by the plaintiff at the time she foreclosed her laborer’s special lien.”

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. Evans & Evans, for plaintiff. : Howard & Jordan, for defendant.

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

Lewis v. Owens, 52 S.E. 333, 124 Ga. 228, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 692 (Ga. 1905).

52 S.E. 333 (Lewis v. Owens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Taylor v. Rainwater
187 S.E. 704 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Thombley v. Hightower
184 S.E. 331 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Kelley v. Moody
167 S.E. 101 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1932)
Howard v. Franklin
124 S.E. 554 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Collier v. Pritchett
118 S.E. 444 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Payne v. Trammell
115 S.E. 923 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Harvey v. Lewis
91 S.E. 1052 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Randolph v. State
85 S.E. 258 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Haralson v. Speer
58 S.E. 142 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)