Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Clark

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided May 18, 1929No. 19262PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

1. In the absence of an express agreement to do so, a landlord is under no duty to repair a patent defect in the rented premises where its existence was known to the tenant at the time the rent contract was entered into; and subsequent notice by a tenant of the existence of such a defect would not place upon the landlord any duty of inspection or repair. Aikin v. Perry, 119 Ga. 263 (3) (46 S. E. 93); McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga. App. 106 (1, 3) (107 S. E. 563).

2. A member of the tenant’s family, occupying the premises in his right, can claim no greater duty or obligation on the part of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crossgrove v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  2. McGee v. HardacreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  3. Williams v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  4. Aikin v. PerrySupreme Court of Georgia · 1903

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Golf Club Co. v. RothsteinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  2. Davis v. General Gas Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  3. Thompson v. CrownoverCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1988
  4. Waddell v. WOFFORD OIL COMPANYCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1951
  5. Carter v. BrannonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API