Lowther v. Patton

165 S.E. 487, 45 Ga. App. 543, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 608
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 1, 1932
Docket22114
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 165 S.E. 487 (Lowther v. Patton) 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
Lowther v. Patton, 165 S.E. 487, 45 Ga. App. 543, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932).

Opinion

Hooper, J.

1. “Where all right, title, and interest of an owner of land has been divested by a sale made pursuant to a power of sale given by him in a deed to the land to secure a debt, and he thereafter remains in possession, he is a tenant at sufferance of the purchaser, and, as such, may be summarily dispossessed, as provided in section 5385 of the Civil Code of 1910.” Anderson v. Watkins, 42 Ga. App. 319 (156 S. E. 43), and cit. The request to overrule the case just cited, which is largely controlling in the instant case, is denied.

[544]*544Decided September 1, 1932. E. F. Goodrum, for plaintiff in error. Charles C. Slone, Earl W. Butler, contra.

2. The affidavit in this casé, made pursuant to section 5385 of the Civil Code of 1910, alleged facts showing a tenancy at sufferance, and therefore the motion to dismiss the proceedings, based upon alleged absence of relationship of landlord and tenant, was properly denied.

3. Although one ground of the counter-affidavit was based upon an alleged contract for the sale of the land, entered into between the grantor and the grantee in the loan deed, subsequent to the foreclosure, the evidence failed to establish any such binding contract between the parties, based on a legal consideration. Even had such a contract been established, it appears from the defendant’s own testimony that he was unable to comply therewith. This ground of the counter-affidavit was, therefore, not supported by the evidence.

4. The trial judge did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff or in overruling the motion for a new trial, based only on the general grounds and amplifications thereof.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, O. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Related

Walker v. Camp
175 S.E.2d 53 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Bible v. Allday
91 S.E.2d 306 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1956)
Crain v. Daniel
54 S.E.2d 487 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
King v. Tilley
26 S.E.2d 293 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1943)
Atlantic Fire Insurance v. Ryals
173 S.E. 875 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 S.E. 487, 45 Ga. App. 543, 1932 Ga. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lowther-v-patton-gactapp-1932.