Harris v. Abney
| Decision Date | 15 November 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 17586,17586 |
| Parties | HARRIS v. ABNEY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
A. D. Abney filed an equitable petition against L. A. Harris, and in substance alleged: On May 8, 1945, the petitioner and S. M. Chapman entered into a lease contract with the defendant for a period of five years for lands of the defendant (described in headnote 3), to be used as an airfield. A copy of the lease is attached as Exhibit 'A.' A more particular description of the premises held and used by the lessee for the past five years is set forth. The petitioner purchased the interest of S. M. Chapman, with the knowledge of the defendant, who continued to deal with the petitioner after such purchase. After purchasing the interest of Chapman, the petitioner improved the airfield at his own expense by the digging of a well. On April 5, 1950, the petitioner received a notice from the defendant that he would not renew the lease, and on April 17, 1950, the petitioner notified the defendant of his intention to renew the lease in accordance with the opinion contained therein. Copies of the letters are attached, marked Exhibits 'B' and 'C.' The defendant has gone upon the lands and constructed a white cross upon the field, the meaning of the cross under the Civil Aeronautics Rules being that the field is closed, and the action of the defendant in constructing the white cross caused the Civil Aeronautics Authority to discontinue the airfield as a commercial field. The defendant is now installing upon the airfield grounds, leased by the petitioner, certain individual speakers to be used in connection with an outdoor moving-picture screen. The construction of such speakers has rendered the field unsafe for the purpose of aircraft flights or instruction. The amount of money to be earned over a period of five years cannot be calculated and the action of the defendant has resulted in damages to the petitioner that are irreparable and incapable of calculation. The defendant is continuing to trespass against the rights of the petitioner, a bona fide leaseholder.
The prayers of the petition were for a temporary restraining order; that the defendant be required to show cause why he should not be permanently enjoined; for a permanent injunction upon the final hearing of the cause; for specific performance of the lease contract; and for other relief.
The defendant filed general and special demurrers to the petition, which were overruled, and exceptions pendente lite were duly filed. The trial of the cause resulted in a verdict for the petitioner. The defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, and he excepts to that judgment, and to the judgment overruling his general and special demurrers.
Brinson & Davis, Summerville, for plaintiff in error.
Walter Shaw, S. W. Fariss, LaFayette, Earl B. Self, T. J. Espy, Jr., Summerville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. A description of land as 'being parts of lots of land Nos. 44 and 45 in the 6th District and 4th Section of Chattooga County, Georgia, that lie north of L. A. Harris' [lessor] present place of businss, being bounded on the east by the highway, on the north by the Walker-Chattooga County line, on the west by the L. A. Harris lands, and on the south by the lands of Durmmons,' is too indefinite to support a decree for possession of the lands by the lessee in an equitable action against the lessor. No particular tract of land is referred to by a given name, nor is there anything to show how far west of the highway the line of separation should be with reference to other lands of the defendant, L. A. Harris. Kauffman v. Deese, 205 Ga. 841, 842(2-a), 55 S.E.2d 358, and cases cited.
2. In the present action to require the lessor to give effect to a claimed right of renewal, the lessor is not estopped to assert the invalidity of the lease by reason of a void or insufficient descritpion of the premises. As a general rule estoppel, to be relied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MATTER OF HISTORIC MACON STATION LTD.
...shall have been induced to act by reason of such conduct of the other." Tinsley v. Rice, 105 Ga. 285, 290, 31 S.E. 174, 176. 67 S.E.2d at 725-26. In In re Myers, C.I.T. Corp. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York,32 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals The requirements necessary to establ......
-
Southern Airways Co. v. De Kalb County
...defendant, in support of the contention that this is substantially equivalent to a suit for specific performance, cites Harris v. Abney, 208 Ga. 518, 67 S.E.2d 724, which was an equitable petition brought by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking to enforce a claimed right of renewal o......
-
Payne v. Jones, 18815
...196 Ga. 626, 27 S.E.2d 226; Jenkins v. Evans, 202 Ga. 423, 43 S.E. 501; Holliday v. Pope, 205 Ga. 301, 53 S.E.2d 350; and Harris v. Abney, 208 Ga. 518, 67 S.E.2d 724, the court could not properly have submitted to the jury the question as to whether or not the contract between the defendant......
-
Smith v. Varner, 48669
...the plaintiffs here were estopped and precluded from suing their brother, the executor under the will. See Code § 38-114; Harris v. Abney, 208 Ga. 518(2), 67 S.E.2d 724; Bell v. Studdard, 220 Ga. 756, 760, 141 S.E.2d 536; Swift & Co. v. Hall, 94 Ga.App. 239, 240(2), 94 S.E.2d 145. The writt......