Rooks v. Mercer

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rooks v. Mercer

156 S.E. 44, 42 Ga. App. 294, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 368

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 15, 1930

Docket20337

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 S.E. 44 (Rooks v. Mercer) 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

Rooks v. Mercer, 156 S.E. 44, 42 Ga. App. 294, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 368 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

The sole insistence in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error being that the verdict and judgment of eviction and for rent were unauthorized and contrary to law because the relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant was not established by the evidence, and this contention not being sustained by the record, but there being, on the other hand, positive and direct testimony by the plaintiff to the effect that the rent contract was made between himself and the defendant alone, although the leased premises were after-wards occupied by the defendant and others, and that the defendant had paid the rent for several months, the judgment of the trial court refusing a new trial must be affirmed.

Judgment affU-med.

Jenhvns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. J-. A. Merritt, for plaintiff in error. B. A. Harrison, contra.

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

Bell, J.

The sole insistence in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error being that the verdict and judgment of eviction and for rent were unauthorized and contrary to law because the relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant was not established by the evidence, and this contention not being sustained by the record, but there being, on the other hand, positive and direct testimony by the plaintiff to the effect that the rent contract was made between himself and the defendant alone, although the leased premises were after-wards occupied by the defendant and others, and that the defendant had paid the rent for several months, the judgment of the trial court refusing a new trial must be affirmed.

Judgment affU-med.

Jenhvns, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur. J-. A. Merritt, for plaintiff in error. B. A. Harrison, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E. 44, 42 Ga. App. 294, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rooks-v-mercer-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack