Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Ga. 475

Steininger v. Williams

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 15, 1879

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1879-09-15

<p>.[Warner, Chief Justice, being engaged in presiding over the senate organized as a court of impeachment, did not sit in this case.]</p> <p>1. A contract establishing the relation, of landlord and tenant for one year, though made before the year begins, may be in parol.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2008

18 state decisions

5018791880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Jackson, Justice.

¶11. 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.”

¶22. 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.

¶33. 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.

¶4The 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.

¶5Judgment affirmed.

/63/ga/475 · .json · Public domain