Case Name: ROBERT M. CLARK, plaintiff in error, v. ROBERT H. McCROSKEY, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1870-06
Citations: 41 Ga. 137
Docket Number: 
Parties: *ROBERT M. CLARK, plaintiff in error, v. ROBERT H. McCROSKEY, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 137–143

Head Matter:
*ROBERT M. CLARK, plaintiff in error, v. ROBERT H. McCROSKEY, defendant in error.
(Atlanta,
June Term, 1870.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT—SCALING ORDINANCE—DESTRUCTION OE TENEMENT—ABATEMENT OE RENT.—A contract for rent, made in 1864, like any other contract, is subject to the Scaling Ordinance of 1865, and the rule laid down in Section 2267 the Code, that the destruction of the tenement by fire, or the loss of possession by any other causalty, not caused by the landlord, or from defect of his title, shall not abate the rent contracted to be paid, must be construed in connection, with the Scaling Ordinance, and subject under it to the right of the defendant, to give in evidence the consideration of the rent notes, and the value thereof at any time.
SAME—SAME—SAME—EVIDENCE OF VALUE OF PROPERTY AFTER DESTRUCTION.—As the tenement rented was destroyed by the Federal army, during the period for which it was rented, and as is the consideration of the rent notes, the defendant has the right to give in evidence its value, after the destruction, as well as at any other time, and the jury, upon the whole evidence, may adjust the equities between the parties. Warner, J., dissenting.
Landlord and Tenant. Scaling Ordinánce. Before Judge Pope. Fulton Superior Court. November Term, 1869.
Clark sued McCroskey upon his promise to pay rent of a store-house in Atlanta, from the 2d of May till the 2d of December, 1864, at $1,000 00 per month. McCroskey pleaded that dollars in his promise meant Confederate currency which were then worth but four cents in the dollar, and contended that the demand should be scaled according to equity; that he had paid $1,000 00 in such currency on the 2d . of May, 1864, and another $1,000 00 on the 2d of June, 1864, and that (on or about the 23d of July, 1864, he was compelled to abandon the occupancy of said premises, in consequence of the shelling of Atlanta by the Federal army, under General Sherman; that thenceforth up to the time of its destruction, he was unable, for the same reason, to occupy said property, and on or about the 14th of November, 1864, the same was burned by said army, by means whereof the value of said property for rent was almost if not entirely destroyed; and he prayed that the equities between the parties be adjusted by the jury under the Ordinance of 1865.) Clark’s attorney demurred to that part of the pleas contained «in (). The demurrer was overruled.
*They introduced McCroskey’s promise to pay for said rent $1,000 00 per month, as aforesaid; showed by a witness the character and situation of the house, that it would have rented for $150 00 per month in specie before the war, and would then rent for $200 00 per month in Greenbacks, and that others would have taken it in May, 1864, at $1,000 00 per month in Confederate currency. Plaintiff closed. McCroskey testified that he occupied said premises for -two months and twenty days from the 2d of May, 1864; that about the 22d of July, 1864, some of General Wheeler’s men entered the store, broke down the doors, and in a few days afterwards, by the shelling of the city by the Federal army, he was compelled to abandon the house; that for the same reason he was kept from occupying it until it was burnt up on the 14th of November, 1864, by said Federal army; that after the entrance of said army into Atlanta, better stores could be had for.nothing, owners being anxious to have their premises occupied in order to preserve them; that his principal business was selling slaves, and the principal value of said store was in that it had a sort of jail in the rear to keep run-a-way slaves. Another witness testified to the same facts. The payment of the $2,000 00 in May and June in Confederate currency was shown. By consent, Barber & Son’s table, showing the value of Confederate currency, was considered as in evidence.
The Court charged that there was a general rule of law that when real property was rented for a definite term, the tenant was liable to pay the rent even though the property should be destroyed or the tenant be deprived of the possession of the same, unless the destruction or loss of possession resulted from some act of the landlord, or from a defect in; his title. There is, however, a certain class of contracts, 'commonly known as “Confederate contracts,” being all those made between the 1st of June, 1861,_ and the 1st of June, 1865, with reference to which a special rule has been adopted, which rule is that either party, in any suit for the enforcement of any such contract, may, upon the trial, give in evidence the consideration and the valtie thereof at any time, *and the intention of the parties as to the currency in which payment was to be made, and the value of such currency at any time, and from all the evidence thus submitted, the jury may render a verdict upon principles of equity; that therefore he declined to charge that the destruction of the tenement or loss of the possession bv any casualty not caused by the landlord or defects in his title, did not relieve the -tenant from payment or rent during the continuance of the term for which he rented; neither would he charge that such destruction or loss relieved the tenant from paying rent; but from all the evidence submitted, under said special -rule, the jury might find a verdict upon principles of equity.
The jury found for plaintiff for $43 99 and costs. His counsel moved for a new trial, upon the grounds that the Court erred in overruling said demurrer and in said charge. The new trial was refused, and that is assigned as error.
Hammond & Welborn, for plaintiff in error,
as to destruction of tenement cited, 3 Kent, 465-6-7; 2 Kelly, 124; Code, sec. 2267; 12 Ga., 12. As to Ordinance of 1865, 35th Ga., 26, 118; 36th, 552.
A. W. Hammond & Son, Arnold & Boyles, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court—
BROWN, C. J.,
delivering the opinion.
The rent contract in this case was made on the 2d of May, 1864, for eight months, at $1,000 per month. The two first months rent were paid, and during the third month, the tenant was driven from the premises by the Federal army, and the house was afterwards burnt by the army. On the trial the plaintiff moved to strike the defendant's plea, which set out this as a defence, and excepted to the charge of the Court, because he refused to charge the jury that the tenant was bound for the rent during the whole period, without regard to the destruction of the house by the army. The Court did charge in substance, that notwithstanding this rule of law the Scaling Ordinance of 1865 was applicable to the case, *and that the jury might adjust the equities between the parties under that Ordinance. After the verdict, a new trial was moved for by plaintiff's counsel upon these grounds alone. There was no objection that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, or that it was without evidence.
On the hearing in this Court, it is urged that the Court erred in refusing to strike the plea, and in refusing to give in charge to the jury the provisions of Section 2267 of the Revised Code, without qualification. When it comes in conflict with no other provision of law, there is no question that the principle laid down .in that section is a sound one: that the destruction of the tenement by fire, or the loss of possession by any casualty not caused by the landlord or from defect of his title, shall not abate the rent contracted to be paid. But in case of a rent contract made between June, 1861, and June, 1865, I see no reason why the Scaling Ordinance does not apply. It must be construed in connection with this section of the Code, and while the rent is not, as a general rule of law, to be abated by reason of the destruction of the tenement, the tenant, when sued upon the rent notes, may, under the Ordinance, in the class of cases to which it applies, give in evidence the consideration of the notes and the value thereof at any time. If the tenement, the rent of which was the consideration of the note, was destroyed by the Federal army, he may show the value of such tenement, after the destruction, as well as before it was destroyed; or in the language of the Ordinance, he may show its value at any time, and the jury may consider this in connection with the other evidence in the case, and may then adjust the equities between the parties, in accordance with the Ordinance above referred to.
I see no reason for making a contract for rent an exception to the general rule laid down in the Ordinance, which has been so often sustained by this Court, in almost every variety of contract made during the period of the war. And as there is no objection to the verdict of the jury on the motion for new trial on the ground that it was contrary to evidence, or without sufficient evidence to .sustain it, I am of *opinion that the judgment of the Court below should be affirmed.