Pettis v. Brewster

19 S.E. 755, 94 Ga. 527
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 23, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 19 S.E. 755 (Pettis v. Brewster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pettis v. Brewster, 19 S.E. 755, 94 Ga. 527 (Ga. 1894).

Opinion

The affidavit .for the warrant alleged, that Brewster was the owner of the land described, which he rented to Pettis for 1889, that Brewster desired possession, which had been demanded after the expiration of the term of renting, and that Pettis refused to deliver the same. By counter-affidavit- Pettis denied that he held the land, by lease or rent or at will or sufferance from Brewster or any one holding under him. By amendment he alleged, that he went into possession under contract of purchase; that the land was useful only for farming, and it was necessary to expend much money for repairs to houses and fences, clearing land, etc., which improvements he made by direction of Brewster’s agent who assured him he would not lose the same; and he asked to recoup their value against the claim for rent. 'The jury found for the plaintiff" $371 rent, and the premises. Defendant’s motion for anew trial was overruled. The motion alleged, in addition to the general grounds, that the court erred in admittin g testimony of Pettis that the land was worth about $240 a year for rent, over objection of his counsel that the affidavit on which the warrant was based did not allege any amount which the land was worth for rent; that the court erred in charging the jury that plaintiff would be entitled to recover interest on whatever amount was found to be ■double the amount the land was worth for rent; and further erred in charging that before defendant could [529]*529.set off the value of improvements against the demand for rent, the parties must have agreed as to the kind of improvements to be made and the amount to be expended therefor, except such improvements as were necessary to protect crops.

L. D. Moore, for plaintiff’ in error W. E. Simmons and A. C. Pate, contra.

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

Related

Leverette v. Moran
266 S.E.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Keith v. McCollum
11 S.E.2d 672 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Crider v. Hedden
107 S.E. 345 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
E. Tris Napier Co. v. Brown
98 S.E. 120 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Ft. Smith W. R. Co. v. Moore
1917 OK 611 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
Great Western Coal & Coke Co. v. Coffman
1914 OK 434 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1914)
Weaver v. Roberson
67 S.E. 662 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1910)
Willis v. Harrell
45 S.E. 794 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 S.E. 755, 94 Ga. 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pettis-v-brewster-ga-1894.