Court Opinion

ID: 9851597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:15:36.221097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:07.899401
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The defendant, in his motion for rehearing, contends that the court overlooked a part o-f his testimony and exhibits which were introduced in evidence. The testimony dealt with a letter which was introduced as an exhibit. The letter, dated October 3, 1956, *503was written more than three months after the original lease had expired and was an attempt by the defendant to revitalize the lease which had already expired. At the time such letter was written the defendant had become a tenant at will and no action taken by him alone could create a new lease or renew the expired lease. Had this letter been written prior to the expiration of the first term of the lease, at a time when he had a right to renew the lease under his option, it could have acted as a renewal, but such was not the case here. Nor could the acceptance of rent by the landlord after receiving the letter work as an estoppel in the present case where there was no plea of estoppel by the tenant. See Carter v. Carter, 207 Ga. 460 (62 S. E. 2d 171).

Rehearing denied.