Folds v. Harris

• Decision Date: 06 October 1925
• Docket Number: 16550.
• Citation: 129 S.E. 664,34 Ga.App. 445
• Parties: FOLDS v. HARRIS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

129 S.E. 664

34 Ga.App. 445

FOLDS v. HARRIS.

No. 16550.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

October 6, 1925

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Where sustaining certiorari was in effect first grant of new trial and evidence was not demanded by verdict, grant of certiorari will not be set aside.

Where verdict was not demanded absolutely by evidence, the Court of Appeals will affirm judgment which was first grant of new trial.

In view of Civ. Code 1910, § 3705, 3707, where relation of landlord and cropper exists, title to crops grown on land remain in landlord, until there has been actual division and settlement, whereby landlord receives his full share of products.

Error from Superior Court, Carroll County; C. E. Roop, Judge.

Proceeding between W. L. Folds and Reese Harris. Judgment for the latter, and the former brings error. Affirmed.

Smith & Taylor, of Carrollton, for plaintiff in error.

Emmett Smith, of Carrollton, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

BLOODWORTH J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled.

2. "The action of the judge of the superior court sustaining the certiorari has the effect of granting a new trial, and, this being the first grant of a new trial and the evidence not having demanded the verdict, under the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court and of this court the grant of the certiorari will not be set aside. Murray v Stribling, 28 Ga.App. 211, 110 S.E. 761; McCall v Stubbs, 28 Ga.App. 308, 111 S.E. 63; Darley v. Williams, 28 Ga.App. 323, 111 S.E. 83. See, also, Maynard v. American Ry. Express Co., 29 Ga.App. 329, 115 S.E. 35." Daniell & Beutell v. McRee, 31 Ga.App. 210 (2), 120 S.E. 448.

"This being the first grant of a new trial, and the verdict not having been demanded absolutely by the evidence, this court, without undertaking to make any adjudication with respect to the reason assigned by the trial judge as the basis of his action, will affirm the judgment. Civil Code 1895, § 5585; Cox v. Grady, 132 Ga. 368, 64 S.E. 262; McCain v. College Park, 112 Ga. 701, 37 S.E. 971; Brantley Co. v. Bank of Waycross, 112 Ga. 532, 37 S.E. 737; Harvey v. Bowles, 112 Ga. 363, 37 S.E. 363; Weinkle v. Brunswick R. Co., 107 Ga. 367, 33 S.E. 471; Macon Street R. Co. v. Jones, 116 Ga. 351, 42 S.E. 468; Allen v. Lumpkin, 116 Ga. 777, 43 S.E. 54;" Van Giesen v. Queen Ins. Co., 132 Ga. 515 (1), 64 S.E. 456.

Where the relation of landlord and cropper exists, "the title to all crops grown on the land remains in the landlord until there has been an actual division and settlement whereby he receives in full his share of the produce." De Loach v. Delk, 119 Ga. 884, 47 S.E. 204; Civil Code 1910, §§ 3705, 3707.

Under the principles announced above...