Steininger v. Williams
| Decision Date | 30 September 1879 |
| Citation | 63 Ga. 475 |
| Parties | Steininger. v. Williams. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]
Contracts. Landlord and tenant. New trial. Before Judge Wright. Decatur Superior Court. May Term, 1879.
Mrs. Williams sued out a distress warrant against Steininger He filed a counter-affidavit. On the trial, the justice rendered judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appealed. In the superior court, the jury found for the plaintiff $58.33 principal Defendant moved for a new trial on the following, among other grounds:
1. Because the court held that the statute of frauds did not apply to this case, and refused to charge that unless the contract was made within the year in which it was to be performed, it was not binding.
2. Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. The motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.
Fleming & Russell; Gurley & Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
*John E. Donalson; E. B. Bower, for defendant.
1. The contract for the rent of the place was made on the 25th of December, 1875, for the year 1876, and it is insisted that if is within the statute of frauds, and must be in writing. We think that the Code controls it now, whatever may have been the rule before, as laid down in 31 Ga., 507; for section 2280 of the Code declares that "contracts creating the relation of landlord and tenant for any time, not exceeding one year, may be by parol."
2. Besides, Steininger was in possession under the contract two months, and paid rent thereon, according to plaintiff's evidence, and therefore the contract was executed. Code, § 1951. It was part performance, and to break it would operate to the injury of plaintiff, depriving her of opportunity to rent. Code, §1951; 53 Ga., 98; 55 Ib., 198.
3. The main question was for the jury, and they have decided it. It is, was there actually a contract for rent, or a mere promise to contract at a future day? If the former, the remedy by distress is good; if the latter, there should have been a suit for damages for the deceit or failure to make the contract. In either event, the figure the defendant would make in a court of justice is not to be envied.
The jury found with the plaintiff's version of the contract, that the house was actually rented, there is evidence to support that finding, the judge who tried the case sustains it, and under our rule we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neely v. Sheppard
...to the same infirmity as related to such statute. While the rental agreement for not more than one year was valid, Steininger v. Williams, 63 Ga. 475; Render v. Harris, 25 Ga.App. 302, 103 S.E. 179, and furnished a consideration for the option, it did not supply the necessity of a writing o......
-
Neely v. Sheppard
...are subject to the same infirmity as related to such statute. While the rental agreement for not more than one year was valid, Steininger v. Williams, 63 Ga. 475; Render Harris, 25 Ga.App. 302, 103 S.E. 179, and furnished a consideration for the option, it did not supply the necessity of a ......
-
Higgins v. Gager
...lease, and not at the time of the contract. 8 N.Y. 115; 10 N.Y. 479; 64 N.Y. 518; 5 Lawson, Rights, Rem. & Pract. § 2325; 2 L. R. A. 847; 63 Ga. 475. The agreements as to selling etc., were only bargains made in connection with the occupancy of the rooms, and the sixth section of the statut......
-
White v. Simplex Radio Co.
... ... held that such a contract is enforceable even though it is ... made before the year begins. Steininger v. Williams, ... 63 Ga. 475; Neely v. Sheppard, 185 Ga. 771, 785, 196 ... S.E. 452; Butler v. Godley, 51 Ga.App. 784, 787, 181 ... S.E. 494 ... ...