Vickers v. Robinson

100 S.E. 22, 24 Ga. App. 85, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 420
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJuly 17, 1919
Docket10002
StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.E. 22 (Vickers v. Robinson) 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
Vickers v. Robinson, 100 S.E. 22, 24 Ga. App. 85, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 420 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Luke, J.

“The relation of landlord and tenant, either by express contract or by legal implication, is an essential basis of a distress warrant.” Hearn v. Huff, 6 Ga. App. 56 (64 S. E. 298). Where, therefore, a counter-affidavit denies in terms of the statute that the sum distrained for is due and specially denies that the relation of landlord and tenant exists, it sets up a sufficient defense to the proceeding by distress warrant. But where, as in this case, the distress warrant is returnable to a court without jurisdiction to grant affirmative equitable relief, and, by way of denying the relation of landlord and tenant, the counter-affidavit further sets up the full terms of the alleged contract of purchase, and the defendants specially pray “that the court will enforce their said contract of purchase against the said plaintiff in distress warrant and that a verdict of the jury and a decree of the court may be framed in the premises, providing for and requiring said plaintiff in said distress warrant to stand to, abide by, and carry out the said contract of sale of the, aforesaid described tract of land to these de[86]*86fendants in distress warrant,” it is error to overrule a timely motion by the plaintiff to strike this prayer, on the ground that it seeks relief beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court to grant. Butler v. Holmes, 128 Ga. 333 (57 S. E. 715).

Decided July 17, 1919. Distraint; from city court of Wrightsville—Judge Blount. July 6, 1918. A. L. Hatcher, B. H. Moye, B. T. Rawlings, for plaintiff in error. B. L. Stephens, contra.

2. The error pointed out above renders all subsequent proceedings in the trial court nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, O. J., and Jenkins, J., concur.

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

Related

Butler v. Holmes
57 S.E. 715 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Hearn v. Huff
64 S.E. 298 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 S.E. 22, 24 Ga. App. 85, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vickers-v-robinson-gactapp-1919.