Case ID: ga_96/html/0789-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Simmons, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Clifford v. Gressinger et al.
    
    April 15, 1895.
    Petition for injunction. Before Judge Beck. Butts county. March 6, 1895.
    On December 30,1893, a contract was made whereby Gressinger leased to Clifford a plantation for a term of five years, to be cultivated for agricultural purposes. It was stipulated that Clifford should have the option to purchase the land after the expiration of the lease and rent term, by paying Gressinger $1,050 on January 1, 1899, and on the same day exécuting three notes for $900 each, due one, two and three years thereafter; that after the payment of these notes, Gressinger should make to Clifford a deed in fee simple; that Clifford “hereby leases and rents” of Gressinger the lands subject, to the restrictions mentioned in this contract, and for such lease and rent term agrees to pay Gressinger on October 14, 1894, and on the same date every year thereafter until the lease term has expired, eight bales of cotton of 500 pounds each; that if the cotton was not delivered as stated, its equivalent in money should be paid; that Clifford should pay all taxes on the land during the term of the lease; and that he should plant out five acres in a vineyard each year until he had planted twenty acres, and should pay all expenses of improvements of the land during the lease and rent term, all such improvements to become a part of the realty and to remain on the land. Clifford went into possession and commenced to cultivate the land, and during 1894 planted five acres in grapevines and fruit-trees and made other improvements at considerable expense, with the bona fide purpose of purchasing the place under the contract. For want of sufficient means and from unfavorable seasons and other causes, the yield of cotton that year was not enough to pay the rent stipulated; and the expense of running the farm was greater than the profit thereof. Hoping to regain in the remaining four years what was lost, he proceeded to provide for cultivating the land for 1895, by contracting with competent and responsible persons for eleven 500 pound bales of cotton free of expense to him; but Gressinger by his attorney interfered with the tenants so contracted with, telling them that if they rented from Clifford they would have to pay the rent twice, and had better not comply with their contracts; and thereby prevented such persons from using the property to Clifford’s advantage. Gressinger also sued out a distress warrant and a warrant to evict Clifford, on the ground of his failure to deliver the cotton as rent under the contract, or to pay its equivalent in money. Thereupon Clifford brought his petition to restrain G-ressinger and the sheriff’ from dispossessing him, alleging that G-ressinger was insolvent, and that he had no legal remedy to evict Clifford, but under the contract could only proceed against him for the value of the rental cotton. The injunction was denied.
   Simmons, C. J.

1. Under a written contract, whereby the owner of land rented the same to another for a term of years at a stipulated rent, to lie paid annually in cotton or its equivalent in money, the tenant also to pay all taxes and to make certain improvements upon the land during the rent term, although the contract also contained a provision that the tenant should, at the expiration of the rent term, have an option to purchase the land at a named price and upon specified terms as to time of payment, the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties during the continuation of the rent term, and upon the tenant’s failure to pay the stipulated rent for any year when it became due, it was the right of the landlord to sue out a warrant under <$4077 et seq. of the code, for his summary ejection.

2. Under the facts disclosed by the record in this case, there was no error in refusing to grant an injunction restraining the landlord from proceeding with the warrant for the ejection of the tenant.

Judgment affirmed.

J. W. Preston and Ray & Ray, for plaintiff’.

> Anderson & Curry and Y. A. "Wright, for defendants.