Thornton v. Hinson

1. Under the evidence submitted, the jury were clearly authorized to find that the relationship existing between the plain tiff and the defendant was that of landlord and cropper. They were authorized, if not compelled, to find that under the contract the crops, which were to be divided equally, were to be cultivated under the authority and direction of the plaintiff, and that the premises remained in his possession and under his control. Souter v. Gravy. 29 Ga. App. 557 (116 S. E. 231). The proceeding in trover was therefore maintainable.

2. The item of $117.96 included in the money verdict…