Hall v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co
Decision Date | 22 February 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 24129.,24129. |
Citation | 50 Ga.App. 625,179 S.E. 183 |
Parties | HALL. v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Municipal Court of Atlanta; Ralph McClelland, Judge.
Petition by A. F. Hall against the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company.To review a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff brings error.
Reversed.
Stanford Arnold, of Newnan, Allen Post, Howell, Heyman & Bolding, and Howell &Post, all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Carter, Carter & Johnson, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1.Assuming that a suit for a malicious use of the process of the courts does not lie in favor of a tenant against a landlord where the tenant has, without probable cause, been forcibly evicted by the landlord under a warrant to dispossess, as provided in section 5386 of the Civil Code of 1910, where the suit had not terminated in favor of the tenant (Sparrow v. Weld, 177 Ga. 134, 169 S. E. 487;Clement v. Orr, 4 Ga. App. 117, 60 S. E. 1017;Dyer v. Fromshon, 42 Ga. App. 174, 155 S. E. 380), a malicious and forcible eviction of the tenant by the landlord, although under a warrant to dispossess regularly issued where the tenant has not breached the contract of rental and is entitled to the possession of the rented premises, and this is known to the landlord, where the tenant did not arrest the proceedings by counter affidavit because of inability to give the required bond, and there had been no suit which terminated in favor of the tenant, constitutes a trespass against the tenant's right to possession for which the tenant has a cause of action sounding in tort against the landlord.Sturgis & Berry v. Frost, 56 Ga. 188;Crusselle v. Pugh, 71 Ga. 744;Smith v. Eubanks & Hill, 72 Ga. 280;Porter v. Johnson, 96 Ga. 145, 23 S. E. 123;Townsend v. Brinson, 117 Ga. 375, 43 S. E. 748;McSwain v. Edge, 6 Ga. App 9, 64 S. E. 116;Jones Mercantile Co. v. Smith (C. C. A.)44 F.(2d) 168;Civ. Code 1910, § 4470.
2.The sufficiency of a petition is determinable by the substance of the allega tions.Where a petition sets out a cause of action under any legal theory, it is good against general demurrer.Pennington & Evans v. Douglas, etc., Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 665, 60 S. E. 485.
3.While the petition in this ease which is a suit by the tenant against the landlord to recover damages for a malicious and forcible eviction of the plaintiff by the defendant under a warrant to dispossess, which was not resisted by counter affidavit, in which it is alleged that the plaintiff had not violated the contract of rental, but was entitled to remain in possession under the contract, may fail to allege a cause of action for a malicious use of process in that it does not appear that the suit had terminated favorably to the plaintiff, nevertheless alleges a cause of action for a trespass against the plaintiff's right of possession.The court therefore erred in dismissing the petition on motion to dismiss in the nature of a general demurrer.
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Wometco Theatres Inc v. United Artists Corp.
...contention we shall agree. McNorrill v. Daniel, 121 Ga. 78, 48 S.E. 680; Malone v. Robinson, 77 Ga. 719; Hall v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 50 Ga.App. 625, 179 S.E. 183; Citizens' & Southern Bank v. Union Warehouse & Compress Co., 157 Ga. 434, 122 S.E. 327. Where a petition is dupli......
-
Whitehead v. Nix
...under a dispossessory warrant, had forcibly evicted plaintiff, as tenant from leased premises. See Hall v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 50 Ga.App. 625(1), 179 S.E. 183; Yopp v. Johnson, 51 Ga.App. 925(1), 181 S.E. 596; Mizell v. Byington, 73 Ga.App. 872, 875, 38 S.E.2d 692. Defendant ......
- Hall v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.