Youngblood v. Duncan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Youngblood v. Duncan

175 S.E. 411, 49 Ga. App. 300, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 370

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1934

Docket23599

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.E. 411 (Youngblood v. Duncan) 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

Youngblood v. Duncan, 175 S.E. 411, 49 Ga. App. 300, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 370 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

MacIntyre, J.

While an action of trover is not a suit on account, for a debt, but an action for the recovery of the possession of chattels belonging to the plaintiff (Civil Code (1910), §§ 4481, 4483, 5150) ; and when the relation of landlord and cropper exists, the title to the crops raised by the latter is vested in the former until “he has received his part of the crops so raised, and is fully paid for all advances made to the cropper in the year said crops were raised to aid in making said crops” (Civil Code (1910), § 3705), yet, in an action of bail-trover brought by a landlord against a cropper, where the evidence authorizes the jury to find that the landlord has been fully paid for all advances made by him to the cropper to make the crops and has received from the cropper one half of the crops raised by him on the lands of the landlord for the year in question, and that the cropper does not owe the landlord anything, a verdict in favor of the defendant cropper is fully authorized and will not be disturbed by this court, although the defendant testified that he had not had a settlement with the landlord for three years, there being evidence to the effect that the landlord was also indebted to the cropper for clearing, breaking, and stumping lands of the landlord. The trial judge did not err in overruling plaintiff’s motion for new trial, which was on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed,

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

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

MacIntyre, J.

While an action of trover is not a suit on account, for a debt, but an action for the recovery of the possession of chattels belonging to the plaintiff (Civil Code (1910), §§ 4481, 4483, 5150) ; and when the relation of landlord and cropper exists, the title to the crops raised by the latter is vested in the former until “he has received his part of the crops so raised, and is fully paid for all advances made to the cropper in the year said crops were raised to aid in making said crops” (Civil Code (1910), § 3705), yet, in an action of bail-trover brought by a landlord against a cropper, where the evidence authorizes the jury to find that the landlord has been fully paid for all advances made by him to the cropper to make the crops and has received from the cropper one half of the crops raised by him on the lands of the landlord for the year in question, and that the cropper does not owe the landlord anything, a verdict in favor of the defendant cropper is fully authorized and will not be disturbed by this court, although the defendant testified that he had not had a settlement with the landlord for three years, there being evidence to the effect that the landlord was also indebted to the cropper for clearing, breaking, and stumping lands of the landlord. The trial judge did not err in overruling plaintiff’s motion for new trial, which was on the general grounds only.

Judgment affirmed,

Broyles, G. J., and Guerry, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E. 411, 49 Ga. App. 300, 1934 Ga. App. LEXIS 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/youngblood-v-duncan-gactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack