TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hardin v. Chambliss

Hardin Et Al. v. Chambliss

Hardin v. Chambliss, 42 S.E.2d 566 (Ga. 1947)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1947
Docket
No. 15776.
Judges
Candler, Duckworth
Citations
42 S.E.2d 566202 Ga. 2471947 Ga. LEXIS 394

Opinion of the Court — Candler

Candler, Justice.

Properly, construed, the contract in this case gave the lessees the right to cut and remove timber of specified dimensions from a described tract of land for five years from November 16, 1940, with an option after that time to extend the right to cut and remove such timber for such additional period, not exceeding five years, “as may be desired,” the lessees to pay six percent of the original purchase-price for such extended time a? they may elect to take, “the same to become due and payable at the end of each additional year, so long as the privileges are exercised.” In order for the lessees to extend the time stated in the contract, it was necessary that the option be exercised at the expiration of the five-year term or immediately thereafter by some act manifesting their intention to do so.

Edmondson v. Boyd Lumber Co., 34

Ga. App.

274 ( 129 S. E. 168 ) ;

Taylor v. West, 142 Ga.

193 ( 82 S. E. 518 ) ;

Shaw v. Bray, 147 Ga.

567 ( 94 S. E. 1008 ) ;

Starling v. Shaw, 150 Ga.

700 ( 105 S. E. 299 );

Hines Lumber Co.

v. Lewis, 173 Ga.

131 ( 159 S. E. 851 ). It affirmatively appearing from the record that the lessees were not in possession of the described premises at the expiration of the five-year period; and that no notice was given by them of any desire to exercise the privilege of extending the contract for an additional year until approximately two and one-half months after the expiration of the five-year period, and counsel for the plaintiff in error not contending that this was immediately after the expiration of the contract; and there being no other manifestation of the lessees’ desire to do so — the court did not err in overruling a demurrer to the petition as amended, attacking it upon the ground that it failed to state a cause of action for a cancellation of the recorded lease as a cloud on title.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Duckworth, P. J., who dissents.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1980: 119802026peak 1980 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Container Corp. of America v. Hornbuckle Farms, Inc.272 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. 1980)

Most recent

  1. Container Corp. of America v. Hornbuckle Farms, Inc.272 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Shaw v. Bray, 94 S.E. 1008 (Ga. 1918) 7
Starling v. Shaw, 105 S.E. 299 (Ga. 1920) 6
Edmondson v. Boyd Lumber Co., 129 S.E. 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925) 5
Hines Lumber Co. v. Lewis, 159 S.E. 851 (Ga. 1931) 3
Taylor v. West, 82 S.E. 513 (Ga. 1914) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list