Lathem v. Odell, (No. 6409.)

• Decision Date: 15 March 1928
• Docket Number: (No. 6409.)
• Citation: 142 S.E. 558,166 Ga. 187
• Parties: LATHEM et al. v. ODELL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

166 Ga. 187

142 S.E. 558

LATHEM et al.

v.ODELL.

(No. 6409.)

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 15, 1928.

(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Error from Superior Court, Hall County; I. H. Sutton, Judge.

Proceedings by F. G. Odell against Lethia Lathem and another, in which defendants filed a counter affidavit. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

W. N. Oliver and H. H. Perry, both of Gainesville, for plaintiffs in error.

Wheeler & Kenyon, of Gainesville, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

GILBERT, J. The exception is to the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The petition of F. G. Odell made substantially the following case: He is old and infirm. He owns the dwelling upon described property in Gainesville. He entered into a contract with Lee Lathem and his mother, Lethia Lathem, under which the two were to move into his home to "look after him." He was to pay $30 a month board and furnish said home to Lee Lathem so long as petitioner was satisfied to live' with him, or so long as said Lathem might be willing to continue said arrangement. Under the agreement Mrs. Lathem was to prepare petitioner's meals, have his clothing washed, care for his room and bed, and see that he was made comfortable. Soon after the Lathems moved in, Mrs. Lathem began to scold and abuse petitioner, refusing to perform her part of the agreement, and threatening to keep possession of his place regardless of him, and began conspiring with her son to obtain all of petitioner's property. She refused to provide him wholesome food. He demanded possession of them, but they refused to give it; and then he was forced to leave, for fear of harm to himself. The Lathems have no right or title in said property; they have violated their agreement; and they insist that Mrs. Lathem owns said home. They are trespassers, but petitioner has no legal remedy, and will suffer irreparable loss unless resort be had to equity. He sued out dispossessory proceedings;defendants filed a counter affidavit denying they held the property under petitioner and filed a bond, but neither of defendants nor their bondsman owns property out of which damages might be realized. Plaintiff prayed for injunction to prevent defendants from continuing upon said premises or interfering with his possession and occupancy. The defendants answered with general denial of cruel treatment toward petitioner, setting up the agreement by which they contend they were to have the actual possession, but denying that this depended upon petitioner's remaining satisfied to remain in the same house with them. They alleged that petitioner resided in defendants' home a while and then insisted they move into his house; that it was a part of said agreement that if Mrs. Lathem would care for the wants of petitioner, she was to have his home at his death; and that defendants have discharged their agreement in good faith. Evidence introduced on the hearing tended to uphold the...