Mayer v. Morehead

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FISH, J.
• Citation: Mayer v. Morehead, 106 Ga. 434, 32 S. E. 349 (Ga. 1899)
• Decision Date: 04 February 1899
• Parties: MAYER et al. v. MOREHEAD.

32 S.E. 349

106 Ga. 434

MAYER et al. v. MOREHEAD.

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 4, 1899

Syllabus by the Court.

Where farming lands were rented for a term of years, and the tenants agreed "to keep up all repairs at their own expense, fire and providential causes excepted," the whole rent could be recovered, notwithstanding the total destruction, by accidental fire, of a gin house situated on the rented premises.

Error from superior court, Dougherty county; A. H. Hansell, Judge.

Action by Mrs. L. L. Morehead against Mayer & Crine. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Affirmed.

D. H Pope & Son, for plaintiffs in error.

Jones & Bacon, for defendant in error.

FISH J.

Mrs. L L. Morehead, as executrix, sued out a distress warrant against Mayer & Crine for $700 rent, claimed to be due for the year 1897 for certain farming lands in Dougherty county. Defendants filed a counter affidavit, and, on the trial, put in evidence a lease from plaintiff to them, the material parts of which were that plaintiff leased to defendants the Mud Creek and Walker places, or farms, from 1893 to 1898, at a rental of $700 a year, and the lessees agreed "to keep up all repairs at their own expense, fire and providential causes excepted," which lease was signed by plaintiff and defendants. The bill of exceptions states that the "defendants then swore Daniel Mayer, one of the defendants, and Charles Bledsoe, and proposed to prove by them that the gin house on the said place was destroyed by fire prior to the fall of 1896; that plaintiff was notified of it, and declined to rebuild or replace it; that defendants raised 200 or 300 bales of cotton on the land rented; that they had to haul it to be ginned on another place, several miles off; that it cost $2 a bale to have it ginned in this way; that it could have been ginned on the place, by the hands employed, without extra expense to the defendants, and that defendants could have made, without extra expense to the defendants, and that defendants could have made, without extra expense to themselves, $200 or $300 a year by ginning their neighbors' cotton; that they paid the rent of 1896 under protest, and gave notice of their right to a reduction thereon, on account of the burning of said gin house, at and before paying the same; that said farms were large, and had all necessary buildings, tenant houses, and the like for running the same, except the burned gin house." Plaintiff's counsel objected to the introduction of this testimony, and the court sustained the objection. Defendants offering no other evidence, a verdict for $700 was rendered for the plaintiff, and defendants excepted.

The question for our decision, therefore, is whether the learned trial judge committed error in rejecting the testimony proffered by the defendants. Where an estate for years is created, our Civil Code (section 3113), following the common law, makes the tenant bound for all repairs or other expense necessary for the preservation and protection of the property; but where simply the relation of landlord and tenant exists, the tenant in such case having no estate, but only a usufruct in the rented premises, the civil law is adopted, and the landlord must keep the premises...