Steininger v. Williams

Steininger v. Williams, 63 Ga. 475 (1879)

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 15, 1879
Judges: Jackson
Citations: 63 Ga. 475

Headnotes

.[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.] 1. A contract establishing the relation, of landlord and tenant for one year, though made before the year begins, may be in parol. 2. If within the statute of frauds, possession thereunder and payment of rent for two months would take the contract out of the operation of the statute. 3. The evidence is conflicting, but there is enough to support the verdict, and in such case .this court will not control the discretion of the judge who tried the case and refused the new trial.

Summary

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.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Jackson

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Jackson, Justice.

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 it 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 anytime, 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-plaintiffs 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 ; 55 198.

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 plaintiffs 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 sustain him.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Neely v. Sheppard196 S.E. 452 (Ga. 1938) · Dissent
Richards v. Plaza Hotel Inc.156 S.E. 809 (Ga. 1931)
Baxley Hardware Co. v. Morris140 S.E. 869 (Ga. 1927)
Butler v. Godley181 S.E. 494 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935)
Higgins v. Gager47 S.W. 848 (Ark. 1898)
Wickson v. Monarch Cycle Manufacturing Co.60 P. 764 (Cal. 1900)

Most recent

Fields v. Lanier670 S.E.2d 145 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008)
Ask Enterprises, Inc. v. Johnson Model Bedding, Inc.270 S.E.2d 709 (Ga. Ct. App. 1980)
Blease v. Blease235 S.E.2d 21 (Ga. 1977)
Deriso v. Castleberry42 S.E.2d 356 (Ga. 1947)
White v. Simplex Radio Co.3 S.E.2d 890 (Ga. 1939)
Neely v. Sheppard196 S.E. 452 (Ga. 1938) · Dissent

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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Barnett Line of Steamers v. Blackmar & Chandler, 53 Ga. 98 (1874)	12
	Atwood v. Norton, 31 Ga. 507 (1860)	10

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list