Strickland v. Flournoy
| Decision Date | 14 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 36599,No. 1,36599,1 |
| Citation | 97 S.E.2d 638,95 Ga.App. 315 |
| Parties | H. L. STRICKLAND v. J. E. FLOURNOY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
S. B. Wallace, Wallace, Wallace & Wallace, Griffin, for plaintiff in error.
Martin, Snow & Grant, Macon, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. The measure of damages for the breach of a lease contract by the lessor is the difference between the rental price agreed upon and the actual value of the premises at the time of the breach. 'Anticipated profits from a business intended to be carried on by the tenant upon the premises are not recoverable.' Kenny v. Collier, 79 Ga. 743(2), 8 S.E. 58, 59; Red v. City Council of Augusta, 25 Ga. 386; Miner v. Graham, 60 Ga.App. 189, 3 S.E.2d 211.
2. Where a petition alleges only special damages which are not recoverable, and does not pray for general or nominal damages, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in any amount, although he would have been entitled to general or special damages had they been alleged. Barwick v. American Mfg. Co., 30 Ga.App. 761 (2) 119 S.E. 218; Truitt v. Rust & Shelburne Sales Co., 25 Ga.App. 62(2), 102 S.E. 645; Hadden v. Southern Messenger Service, 135 Ga. 372, 69 S.E. 480; Stewart v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 83 Ga.App. 532(3), 64 S.E.2d 327; Beverly v. Observer Publishing Co., 88 Ga.App. 490(3), 77 S.E.2d 80. Stewart v. Western Union Tel. Co., 83 Ga.App. 532, 535, 64 S.E.2d 327, 329.
The judge did not err in sustaining the general demurrer and dismissing the petition.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cohen v. Garland, 43856
...is subject to attack only by special demurrer, (see Hodges v. Georgia Kaolin Co., 108 Ga.App. 115, 132 S.E.2d 86; Strickland v. Flournoy, 95 Ga.App. 315, 97 S.E.2d 638, the attack against the amendment as here made was properly the subject matter of a motion to strike or a motion to dismiss......
-
Bigelow-Sanford Carpet Co. v. Goodroe
...the defendants is not applicable here. See Hadden v. Southern Messenger Service, 135 Ga. 372, 374(3), 69 S.E. 480; Strickland v. Flournoy, 95 Ga.App. 315(2), 97 S.E.2d 638. Another contention made by counsel for the defendants is that the cross-action here involved could be construed as one......
-
American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. v. Griffith, s. 39836
...each case was subject to general demurrer and the trial court erred in overruling the general demurrer in each case. Strickland v. Flournoy, 95 Ga.App. 315(2), 97 S.E.2d 638, and The foregoing ruling renders it unnecessary to decide any issue raised by the special demurrers and the exceptio......
-
Dearing Leasing Co. v. Harmon, Inc., 39952
...Mfg. Co., 30 Ga.App. 761(2), 119 S.E. 218; Stewart v. Western Union Tel. Co., 83 Ga.App. 532(3), 64 S.E.2d 327; Strickland v. Flournoy, 95 Ga.App. 315(2), 97 S.E.2d 638. Judgment NICHOLS, P. J., and JORDAN, J., concur. ...