Morrow vs. Sawyer

Supreme Court of Georgia1888-11-22

82 Ga. 226

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed the nonsuit and held that a purchaser of land who acquires title from the original landlord during a tenant's lease term may use the statutory ejectment remedy to recover possession after the lease expires.

B. W. Morrow rented land to J. C. Sawyer for 1885. During the lease term, Morrow arranged for his brother J. H. Morrow to receive a deed to the property in exchange for paying off the remaining balance owed on it. When Sawyer refused to vacate after his lease expired, J. H. Morrow initiated an ejectment proceeding under a statutory provision. The trial court granted Sawyer's motion for nonsuit, reasoning that the statute did not permit a purchaser who took title during an existing tenancy to use this summary remedy—only the original landlord could do so.

The court reversed, holding that the statute was specifically designed to address situations where land is sold to a new owner during a tenant's lease term. The court traced the statute's origins to an 1854 legislative act that expressly extended the remedy to cover purchases by subsequent owners from the original lessor. The court also rejected Sawyer's alternative argument that the transaction was merely a secured loan rather than a sale, finding that even if true, the deed would have passed legal title to J. H. Morrow, entitling him to recover possession.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a subsequent purchaser of land can invoke summary ejectment procedures against a holdover tenant
Proper scope and application of the statutory ejectment remedy
Whether a deed given as security for debt payment passes sufficient title for ejectment purposes

Procedural posture

J. H. Morrow filed an ejectment proceeding against Sawyer under the statutory summary remedy; the trial court granted Sawyer's motion for nonsuit, and Morrow appealed.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Simmons, Justice.

It appears, from the record in this case, that B. W. Morrow rented a tract of land to J. C. Sawyer for the year 1885. Morrow had not fully paid for the land. During the term for which Sawyer had rented the land, to wit, in April, 1885, Morrow got his brother, J. H. Morrow, to give his note for the balance due on the land, $55, and had Kimball to make a deed to the land to J. II. Morrow. At the expiration of Sawyer’s term, J. TI. Morrow demanded possession of the land, and Sawyer refused to yield it. J. II. Morrow then filed his affidavit, under section 4077 of the code, setting out that he was the owner of the land, that he had become the purchaser thereof from B. W. Morrow after Sawyer had rented it, that Sawyer was holding over beyond his term, and that he had demanded possession of Sawyer and had been refused. A warrant was thereupon issued to eject Sawyer from the premises. The proceedings were arrested by Sawyer’s tendering to the officer a counter-affidavit ; in which affidavit he alleged that he did not hold the premises, either by lease or rent, or at will or by sufferance, or otherwise, from J. II. Morrow, or from any one under whom he claimed, nor from any one claiming under him. On the trial of the case, J. II. Morrow showed the facts above recited, and closed. Sawyer made a motion to nonsuit, which was granted by the court, upon the ground that J. EL Morrow, not being the landlord who rented the premises to Sawyer, could not eject Sawyer by this, summary remedy; or in other words, the court held that section 4077 of the code did not apply to a purchaser of land after it had been rented. Morrow excepted, and brought the case here for review.

"We think the court erred in granting the nonsuit upon the ground stated in the bill of exceptions. We think that this section of the code (§4077) applies to one who purchases from the original landlord during the term of the tenant. Indeed, the act of Eebruary 18th, 1854, (acts 1853-4, p. 55,) from which §4077 is partly codified, was enacted by the legislature expressly to meet cases of this sort. That act declares that the original act shall be “so extended as to embrace the cases of the vendee of the original lessor or owner from whom the land was rented.” The codifiers, instead of using the term “vendee”, used the general term “owner.” We hold, therefore, that where the owner of land rents it for a term to a tenant, and during that-term sells the land to another, and after the expiration of the term the tenant refuses to give up the possession to the purchaser of the land, the purchaser can avail himself of the remedy prescribed in section 4077 of the code.

It was insisted, however, by counsel for the defendant in error, that this nonsuit was right, because the evidence tended to show that this was not a sale of the land to J. II. Morrow, but was simply a deed to secure the payment of money to him by B. W. Morrow, the orignal owner. Even if this were true, we do not think it- would necessarily help the defendant in error in this case. If it was a deed to secure the payment of money, it. passed the title to J. H. Morrow, and after the money became due, he would be entitled to recover the land, unless the money was paid.

Judgment reversed.