Lee v. Humphries

• Decision Date: 22 December 1905
• Citation: 52 S.E. 1007,124 Ga. 538
• Parties: LEE et al. v. HUMPHRIES et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 S.E. 1007

124 Ga. 538

LEE et al.

v.HUMPHRIES et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 22, 1905.

1. Ejectment— Mesne Profits—What Constitute.

When, in an action of ejectment, the defendant is a bona fide possessor under a claim of right, the mesne profits are to be assessed upon the value of the property as it stood when the defendant's title accrued, and the plaintiff is prohibited from recovering as mesne profits the increase of income resulting from improvements made by the defendants in good faith.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 17, Cent. Dig. Ejectment, §§ 438, 446.]

2. Trial—Verdict—Amendment.

When a jury returns a verdict which is incomplete on account of a failure to embrace therein a finding on a material issue, it is not error for the court to call the attention of thejury to the fact and require them to return to their room and complete the verdict.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 46, Cent. Dig. Trial, § 867.]

3. Ejectment—Evidence.

The evidence authorized the verdict, and no sufficient reason has been shown for granting a new trial.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; W. H. Felton, Jr., Judge.

Action by Thomas Lee and Sarah Sheffield against Charlotte Humphries and others. Verdict for plaintiffs. From an order denying a new trial, they bring error. Affirmed.

Thomas Lee and Sarah Sheffield brought suit against Charlotte Humphries and others for a certain described tract of land and mesne profits. The jury returned the following verdict: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs the land and mesne profits $3.00 per annum for rent of land. We find for defendant the value of the improvements $188.50. April 21, '05. J. R. Bowdre, Foreman." Whereupon the court immediately ordered the jury to return to their room and make a verdict in accordance with the form given in his charge, and the jury retired and returned the following verdict: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiffs the premises in dispute. We find the value of the lands to be $100 We find the value of the improvements to be $175.00. We find the mesne profits per year to be $3.00, offset by taxes. April 21, '05. J. R. Bowdre, Foreman." To this verdict the plaintiff objected, and moved the court to set it aside; but the motion was overruled, and it was ordered that the verdict be recorded. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, upon the general grounds, and because of the following charge of the court: "The plaintiffs concede that the defendants put the improvements upon the land in good faith. I charge you that in considering the question of mesne profits that you cannot find for the plaintiff against the defendants the mesne profits arising by virtue of the increased value of the premises for renting purposes by reason of any improvements put thereon by the defendants; and in determining the amount of mesne profits you are not authorized to find for the plaintiffs the mesne profits based upon the value of the land as improved by the defendant, but only such mesne profits as represent the value of the premises for rent without the improvements made by defendant." To the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial, and to the action of the court in ordering the jury to find the second verdict and ordering that it be recorded, the plaintiff excepted.

M. W. Bayne, for plaintiffs in error.

Steed & Ryals, for defendants in error.

COBB, P. J. The charge of the court excepted to correctly set forth the law governing the recovery of mesne profits in an action where the defendant is a bona fide possessor under a claim of right. In estimating mesne profits in such a case, the basis must be the rental value of the land without...