Teel v. State
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Powell, J.
1. Where the relation of landlord and tenant exists, the title to crops grown on the rented land is in the tenant, and not in the landlord; the latter has only a lien for his rent.
2. Where the tenant disposes of crops grown on the rented land to the injury of the landlord, the offense is not larceny, but is a violation of a different provision of the Penal Code.
3. The landlord can not acquire title to the crops grown on the rented land simply by taking possession of them. He therefore can not by his own act, without the consent of the tenant, acquire such title to the crops grown on the rented premises as would support an indictment for larceny against the tenant for taking an'd' carrying away the crop. Neal v. Smith, 123 Ga. 26 ( 50 S. E. 922 ) ; Hall v. McGaughey, 114 Ga. 405 ( 40 S. E. 246 ). ’ Judgment reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.