Stewart v. Durham

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stewart v. Durham

104 S.E. 15, 25 Ga. App. 645, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 127

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1920

Docket11159

StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.E. 15 (Stewart v. Durham) 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

Stewart v. Durham, 104 S.E. 15, 25 Ga. App. 645, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 127 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Before a laborer’s lien can be foreclosed it must be shown that the laborer has fully completed the contract. Wall v. Rutherford, 60 Ga. 440; Dexter v. Glover, 62 Ga. 312.

2. While the contract will be treated as fully performed and completed by the laborer when the completion thereof has been prevented by the other party thereto (Ballard v. Daniel, 18 Ga. App. 449, 89 S. E. 603, and cases there cited), yet where a cropper, before completing his contract, demands that the part of the crop which has been gathered be sold, and the demand is refused by the landlord, and it does not appear that the landlord in any way prevented the cropper from gathering the remainder of the crojp and completing his contract, it cannot be said that such action on the part of the landlord amounts to such a prevention on his part as will permit the foreclosure of a laborer’s lien before the contract has been fully performed.

3. The evidence demanded a verdict for the defendant and the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Before a laborer’s lien can be foreclosed it must be shown that the laborer has fully completed the contract. Wall v. Rutherford, 60 Ga. 440; Dexter v. Glover, 62 Ga. 312.

2. While the contract will be treated as fully performed and completed by the laborer when the completion thereof has been prevented by the other party thereto (Ballard v. Daniel, 18 Ga. App. 449, 89 S. E. 603, and cases there cited), yet where a cropper, before completing his contract, demands that the part of the crop which has been gathered be sold, and the demand is refused by the landlord, and it does not appear that the landlord in any way prevented the cropper from gathering the remainder of the crojp and completing his contract, it cannot be said that such action on the part of the landlord amounts to such a prevention on his part as will permit the foreclosure of a laborer’s lien before the contract has been fully performed.

3. The evidence demanded a verdict for the defendant and the trial judge erred in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.E. 15, 25 Ga. App. 645, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stewart-v-durham-gactapp-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack