Visage v. Schofield

Decided August 15, 1878

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1878-08-15

<p>Where the receiver had rented lands to the plaintiff in error after a decree, claimed to be final, but which did not discharge the receiver in terms, and had not been fully executed, and plaintiff in error was holding over his term, he having been a party to the litigation which resulted in the decree, and the receiver applied for an order to dispossess the said plaintiff in error, and to restore the possession to the receiver in order to put in the new tenant;</p> <p>Held, that the order to restore the possession to the receiver was right.</p>

Decided 1878-08-15

Jackson, Judge.

¶1The single question made is, whether the defendant to the rule, having rented from the receiver since the decree of the court, and his term having expired, and the receiver having rented the land to another, could hold over so as to keep the receiver out and prevent him from putting his new tenant in.

¶2We think that he had no such right, although it was based upon the decree which seemed final.

¶3The receiver remained in office and the property was in the possession of the court, he being its officer until regularly discharged — which was not done by the decree or otherwise.

¶4Besides, this defendant rented from the receiver after the decree.

¶5Judgment affirmed.