Legal Opinion

Gardner v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 6, 1929No. 18779PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

1. Notwithstanding a landlord, after his cropper has, on account of sickness, been rendered unable to malee the crop and bring it to-maturity, takes from the cropper a mule, without which the cropper, even if able to work, could not have made a crop, the failure of the cropper to complete his contract and make a crop is due to the cropper’s own inability caused by sickness, and not to the act of the landlord in depriving the cropper of the use of the mule. This is true notwithstanding, after the landlord had taken the mule, the cropper, through the assistance of neighbors, might have been…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Haralson v. SpeerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  2. Argo v. FieldsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Clark v. Western & Atlantic RailroadCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
  2. Ætna Insurance v. TrimmierCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
  3. Carmichael v. SilversCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
  4. Carmichael v. SilversCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
  5. Taylor v. RainwaterCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API