Gilreath v. Argo, 50598
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | MARSHALL; BELL, C.J., and WEBB |
| Citation | 219 S.E.2d 461,135 Ga.App. 849 |
| Parties | G. A. GILREATH et al. v. R. E. ARGO et al |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 50598,50598,1 |
| Decision Date | 03 September 1975 |
Page 461
v.
R. E. ARGO et al.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 29, 1975.
Page 462
[135 Ga.App. 852] Grady C. Pittard, Jr., Athens, for appellants.
Fortson, Bentley & Griffin, Herbert T. Hutto, Chappelle Matthews, Hudson & Montgomery, Jim Hudson, Athens, for appellees.
[135 Ga.App. 849] MARSHALL, Judge.
This is a landlord-tenant case involving language in a lease by Oliver and his transferee, Argo, of commercial premises, including fixtures, to Gilreath and Johnson, lessees and defendants below, for use as a retail oyster and seafood business.
The lease provided in pertinent part: 'The lessees agree to make at their own expense, and without expense to the lessor, . . . all of the necessary and needful repairs to said premises . . . Lessor will not be responsible for any breakdown, failure to operate or wearing out of any fixture or piece of equipment. The equipment is operating satisfactorily for the purpose of carrying on the present business, but no claim or guarantee is made beyond this.'
Six months after the lease commenced, the compressor in the refrigeration equipment broke down causing damage to other equipment in the building and rendering the business inoperable. The defendants, lessees, vacated the premises and did not
Page 463
pay rent. Argo brought suit against the defendants for unpaid rent, plus interest, and for certain expenses to repair the equipment. The defendants answered denying liability and filed a third-party complaint against the original lessor, Oliver, for fraud and misrepresentation in inducing the defendants to enter the lease.Argo relied on the language in the lease that he was not responsible for the breakdown of the equipment and that the defendant lessees therefore had no right to vacate the premises. The defendants relied on the language in the lease that the equipment was operating satisfactorily for the purpose of carrying on the 'present business' at the time of the lease, meaning that the equipment would run for the five-year period of the lease.
Following lengthy litigation, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff Argo. Judgment was entered in favor [135 Ga.App. 850] of Argo and in favor of Oliver on the third-party complaint. Defendants, lessees, appeal therefrom, enumerating 17 errors.
1. In Enumerations of error 6 through 16 the defendants allege errors in the trial court's instructions and recharges to the jury and in certain failures to instruct. We have reviewed the court's instructions (covering some 45 pages of transcript) and the defendants' objections and the discussion thereof (covering another 90 pages) and find that the trial judge properly instructed on the law as it applied to the facts in this case. Though the jury may have been confused by the length and complexity of the instructions on the law, it could not have been misled to the prejudice of the defendants because the principles of law given by the court were applicable and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 1:92-CV-333-RHH.
...Beach v. Fleming, 214 Ga. 303, 306, 104 S.E.2d 427 (1958); Guernsey, cited supra, 183 Ga.App. at 793, 359 S.E.2d 920; Gilreath v. Argo, 135 Ga.App. 849, 851, 219 S.E.2d 461 (1975); Warner v. Jeter, 115 Ga.App. 6, 7, 153 S.E.2d 626 (1967); Kennesaw Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Flanigan, 114 G......
-
Sanders v. Stewart, 59186
...6, 7), 439-440; Coffee v. Newsom, 2 Ga. 442; Elsner v. Cathcart Cartage Co., 124 Ga.App. 615(1), 184 S.E.2d 685; Gilreath v. Argo, 135 Ga.App. 849, 851(3), 219 S.E.2d 5. The court gave a charge on good faith of a party in making a false representation in that this information was not availa......
-
Maggard Truck Line, Inc. v. Deaton, Inc., Civ. A. No. C82-779A.
...the court. "The construction of a contract is a question of law for the court. Code § 20-701 now O.C.G.A. § 13-2-1." Gilreath v. Argo, 135 Ga.App. 849, 219 S.E.2d 461 (1975). Only where a contractual provision is ambiguous does the interpretation thereof become a jury question. Sim's Crane ......
-
Allen v. Sanders, 70871
...a ground for voiding a contract under OCGA § 13-5-5 must be fraud which induced a party to enter into the contract. Gilreath v. Argo, 135 Ga.App. 849, 851(3), 219 S.E.2d 461 (1975). The elements of fraud are "(1) a false representation made by the defendant; (2) scienter; (3) an intention t......