Dollar v. Roddenbery

• Decision Date: 12 August 1895
• Citation: 25 S.E. 410,97 Ga. 148
• Parties: DOLLAR et al. v. RODDENBERY.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

25 S.E. 410

97 Ga. 148

DOLLAR et al. v. RODDENBERY.

Supreme Court of Georgia

August 12, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

Where after the rendition of a judgment against the owner of land the latter rented the same to another, who planted an annual crop thereon, and, before the maturity of the crop an execution issued from such judgment was levied upon the land so rented, the purchaser at a sale thereunder acquired the title of the owner in the land; but, as to the growing crop he acquired only the interest of the owner as landlord, and was therefore not entitled, as against the tenant, to maintain an action of trover for the recovery after its maturity of the entire crop.

Error from superior court, Decatur county; B. B. Bower, Judge.

Action by S. A. Roddenbery against W. A. Dollar and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Reversed.

D. A. Russell and Glenn & Rountree, for plaintiffs in error.

Donalson & Hawes, for defendant in error.

ATKINSON J.

A judgment in this state operates only as a lien upon the property of the debtor, and neither divests his title nor in any manner interferes with his right of possession or control over his property until it is enforced, and the title transferred to another, by a sale under execution. Notwithstanding the rendition of a judgment against him, the owner of land may lawfully let the same to a tenant for years or at will. The tenant, however, takes the leased premises subject to the right of the judgment creditor to terminate its existence by the enforcement of the judgment and a sale of the land. In such a case, while the tenancy may, by contract as between the original landlord and tenant, be for a definite terms, it is nevertheless, by operation of law, at the will of the judgment creditor, and subject to be determined by him at any time by an enforcement of the judgment. At common law it was the element of uncertainty in the duration of his terms which entitled a tenant at will to his emblements. See 1 Co. Litt. p. 55a. And this element of uncertainty is introduced into the tenancy now in question not by the act of the tenant, but by the voluntary act of the judgment creditor, who is now seeking to deprive him of his emblements. If uncertainty in the duration of his term is the circumstance which entitled the tenant to his emblements, surely under a tenancy at one time certain, but afterwards rendered uncertain because, by operation of law, it came to be at the will of the judgment creditor, the tenant ought not to be deprived of his emblements. Under an execution against the landlord, the sheriff is entitled to seize, and the purchaser acquires at the sale, no greater interest in the premises than the landlord himself had. If this be true,--and that it is cannot be seriously questioned,--then, under the state of facts existing here, this defendant is entitled to recover. Such recovery is allowable on the most obvious principles of justice...