Morgan v. Chunn
This text of 66 S.E. 965 (Morgan v. Chunn) 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.
Opinion
1. In an action brought to recover damages alleged, to have accrued by reason of the defendant’s employment of the plaintiff’s tenant, it was not error to refuse' to strike an amendment to the defendant’s plea, setting up that the defendant did not know that the tenant was under any contract, and further pleading that if the tenant was under contract with the plaintiff there had been a novation of the contract which was originally the basis of the suit.
2. Where special instructions upon the subject of the preponderance of the evidence, as related to the shifting of the burden of proof, are desired, they should be requested. As the charge of the judge in the present case sets forth the general principles applicable to the ease, the failure to give more specific instructions, in the absence of request, does not warrant a reversal.
3. The fact that a contract between a landlord and his tenant is in writing does not preclude one who is sued for disturbing that relation from pleading and proving that there was a novation of the contract set out in the plaintiff’s petition, by reason of which the specific contract, the breach of which is alleged, was abrogated, and by such plea laying the foundation for evidence establishing a fatal variance between the allegations and the proof.
4. The evidence authorized the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
66 S.E. 965, 7 Ga. App. 263, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-chunn-gactapp-1910.