Stack v. Harris, 36 S.E. 615 (Ga. 1900). · Go Syfert
Search
Stack v. Harris, 36 S.E. 615 (Ga. 1900). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
145 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Porter v. Moschella (gactapp, 1979-12-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Porter v. Moschella
Ga. Ct. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
Landlord resisted the motion below asserting that he had properly responded to tenants’ notices and requests within a "reasonable time” of being notified (Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 SE 615 ) (1900)), in support thereof producing evidence as to the nature, date, and cost of repairs which he made.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Booker v. J. T. Bickers Realty Co.
Ga. Ct. App. · 1972 · confidence medium
Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 SE 615 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Black v. New Holland Baptist Church
Ga. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
"Under the law of this State, it is presumed that the premises leased are in a condition suitable for the purposes for which they were rented, and if such is not the case, and damage results therefrom to the tenant, the landlord is liable, provided he has had notice of the defective condition of the premises and has failed after a reasonable time to make the necessary repairs, and provided also that the tenant has not been guilty of such negligence as to bar a recovery by him.” Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 SE 615 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Canfield v. Howard
Ga. Ct. App. · 1964 · confidence medium
Johnson v. Collins, 98 Ga. 271, 273 ( 26 SE 744 ); Stack v. Hams, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 SE 615 ); Wolbe v. Jossey, 42 Ga. App. 612 (1), supra; Shaddix v. Eberhart, 55 Ga. App. 498 , supra; Garner v. LaMarr, 88 Ga. App. 364 (1), supra; Aycock v. Houser, 96 Ga. App. 99 , supra. Judgment affirmed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dempsey v. Smith
Ga. Ct. App. · 1963 · confidence medium
To this extent he might be charged with liability for injury arising from a defect which was hidden so far as the tenant was concerned.’ Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 SE 615 ). . . . 'Members of a tenant’s family, his guests, servants, employees or others present by his express or implied invitation, stand in his shoes, and are controlled by the rules governing the tenant as to the right of recovery for injuries arising from failure to keep the premises in repair.’ Cross- *90 grove v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Point Apartments, Inc. v. Bryant
Ga. Ct. App. · 1959 · confidence medium
In *113 Elijah A. Brown Co. v. Wilson, 191 Ga. 750 (1) ( 13 S. E. 2d 779 ) it was held: “The responsibility of a landlord for damages . . . for failure to repair a latent defect in the premises before leasing it, is not absolute, but is predicable only on his knowledge of the defect and the consequent necessity for repairs.” The rule is well stated in Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 S. E. 615 ): “The common law placed the burden of repairs upon the tenant, and the landlord was not bound to make repairs unless there, was an express stipulation to that effect in the contract which c…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aycock v. Houser
Ga. Ct. App. · 1957 · confidence medium
Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garner v. LaMarr
Ga. Ct. App. · 1953 · confidence medium
“When the landlord is notified that the premises are out of repair, it becomes his duty to inspect and investigate in order that he may make such repairs as the safety of the tenant requires.” Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga. App. 106 (3, 4) ( 107 S. E. 563 ); Turner v. Dempsey, 36 Ga. App. 44 ( 135 S. E. 220 ); Cassidy v. Cullens, 36 Ga. App. 469 ( 137 S. E. 130 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sixth Street Corporation v. Daniel
Ga. Ct. App. · 1950 · confidence medium
Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); Clements v. Blanchard, 141 Ga. 311, 312 ( 80 S. E. 1004 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bixby v. Sinclair Refining Company
Ga. Ct. App. · 1946 · confidence medium
Counsel cites Dougherty v. Taylor & Norton Co., 5 Ga. App. 773 ( 63 S. E. 928 ), and calls particular attention to Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 152 ( 36 S. E. 615 ), where the court stated: “There was nothing appearing on the face of the petition which would authorize a conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of such negligence as would preclude a recovery on his part.” It will be observed in that case that the issue involved pertained to a latent defect and the responsibility of the landlord to make inspection after notice.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gibson v. Littlejohn
Ga. Ct. App. · 1942 · confidence medium
It follows, therefore, that when after such notice the landlord fails within a reasonable time to make the repairs, he is chargeable with notice of all the defects that a proper inspection would have disclosed.” (Italics ours.) Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 S. E. 615 ), and cit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coker v. Murphey
Ga. Ct. App. · 1942 · confidence medium
As the petition distinctly alleged that the plaintiff at the time he was injured was in the use of a portion of the floor which was apparently sound, and that there was nothing to indicate that there was any defect in that portion of the floor, there was nothing appearing on the face of the petition which would authorize the conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of such negligence as would preclude a recovery on his part.” Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); Guthman v. Castleberry, 48 Ga. 172 ; Whittle v. Webster, 55 Ga. 180; Roach v. LeGree, 18 Ga. App. 250 ( 89 S. E. 167…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coleman v. Davis
Ga. Ct. App. · 1939 · confidence medium
But even after notice to the landlord the tenant has a right to use those parts of the premises which are apparently in good condition, if there is nothing to call his attention to what may be a hidden defect.” Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); Mathis v. Gazan, 51 Ga. App. 805 ( 181 S. E. 503 ), and cit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wall Realty Co. v. Leslie
Ga. Ct. App. · 1936 · confidence medium
To this extent he might be charged with liability for injury arising from a defect which was hidden so far as the tenant was concerned.” Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ). (a) “Members of a tenant’s family, his guests, servants, employees, or others present by his express or implied invitation, stand in his shoes, and are controlled by the rules governing the tenant as to the right of recovery for injuries arising from failure to keep the premises in repair.” Crossgrove v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dessau v. Achord
Ga. Ct. App. · 1935 · confidence medium
While the tenant must avoid obvious dangers, the law does not impose upon her the duty of making a thorough examination of the landlord’s property in order to ascertain hidden dangers; but “when the landlord is notified that the premises are out of repair, it becomes his duty to inspect and investigate in order that he may make such repairs as the safety of the tenant requires.” Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga. App. 106 (3, 4) ( 107 S. E. 563 ); Turner v. Dempsey, 36 Ga. App. 44 ( 135 S. E. 220 ); Cassidy v. Cullens, 36 Ga. App. 469 ( 137 S. E…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Krapf v. Sternberg
Ga. Ct. App. · 1933 · confidence medium
Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ). (a) The petitions in both cases allege that the wife of the tenant informed the agent of the landlord that the back steps of her house were in need of repair, and told him that she wished he would inform the landlord of the fact, so that the steps would be inspected and repaired where necessary; that the agent obeyed the request and the landlord was immediately notified of the condition of the said steps; that thereafter she was carefully and cautiously walking down the said steps, when, suddenly, and “without any previous warning or indica…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cohen v. Phipps
Ga. Ct. App. · 1925 · confidence medium
It follows, therefore, that when after such notice the landlord fails within a reasonable time to make the repairs, he is chargeable with notice of all the defects that a proper inspection would have disclosed.” Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); Roach v. LeGree, 18 Ga. App. 250, 252 ( 89 S. E. 167 ); McGee v. Hardacre, supra (3).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crossgrove v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
Ga. Ct. App. · 1923 · confidence medium
Under the averments of the petition, the plaintiff, as the daughter and a member of the family of her father, was his lawful invitee, regardless of whether she was or was not a minor. (a) “When the tenant is in the exclusive possession and control of the rented premises, the landlord is under no duty of examining the same with a view to ascertaining whether or not repairs are needed, unless requested so to do.” Ocean Steamship Co. v. Hamilton, 112 Ga. 901 (2) ( 38 S. E. 204 ); Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); McGee v. Hardacre, 27 Ga. App. 106 ( 107 S. E. 563 ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McGee v. Hardacre
Ga. Ct. App. · 1921 · confidence medium
Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); Roach v. LeGree, 18 Ga. App. 250, 252 ( 89 S. E. 167 ); Alexander v. Owen, 18 Ga. App. 326 ( 89 S. E. 437 ); 20 R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weyman v. Maynard
Ga. Ct. App. · 1919 · confidence medium
Henley v. Brockman, 124 Ga. 1059 (5) ( 53 S. E. 672 ); Driver v. Maxwell, 56 Ga. 11 (2); White v. Montgomery, 58 Ga. 204 ; Ocean Steamship Co. v. Hamilton, 112 Ga. 901, 903 ( 38 S. E. 204 ); Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 S. E. 615 ); Adams v. Klasing, 20 Ga. App. 203 ( 92 S. E. 960 ); 16 R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alexander v. Owen
Ga. Ct. App. · 1916 · confidence medium
Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ). (a) The petitions in both cases alleged that the wife of the tenant informed the agent of the landlord that the back steps of her house were in need of repair, and told him that she wished he would inform the landlord of the fact, so that the steps would be inspected and repaired where necessary; that the agent obeyed the request and the landlord was immediately notified of the condition of the said steps; that thereafter she was carefully and cautiously walking down the said steps, when, suddenly and “without any previous warning or indica…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roach v. LeGree
Ga. Ct. App. · 1916 · confidence medium
Guthman v. Castleberry, 48 Ga. 175 ; Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 150 ( 36 S. E. 615 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clements v. Blanchard
Ga. · 1914 · confidence medium
As was said in Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149, 151 ( 36 S. E. 615 ), "When rented premises become out of repair, it is the duty of the tenant to notify the landlord of this fact, and also to abstain from using any part of the premises, the use of which would be attended with danger.” The plaintiffs petition shows that three months prior to her illness the water accumulated in the cellar because of the failure to repair the wall, and that the effect of the ponding of the water therein was to create such a condition as to render the house unfit to live in as a home.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Warner v. Arnold (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1974 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Stack v. Harris, 111 Ga. 149 ( 36 SE 615 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STACK
v.
HARRIS
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jul 9, 1900.
36 S.E. 615
Hammond, Skeen & Langley, for plaintiff in error. ., Daniel W. Rountree, contra.
Cobb.
Cited by 76 opinions  |  Published
Cobb, J.

Harris brought suit against Miss Minnie Stack, alleging in his petition that, on the 18th day of May, 1899, he rented from the defendant a storehouse in the city of Atlanta; "that he was a gunsmith by .trade and used the store rented as .a general repair-shop; that on the night of July 15, 1899, about eleven o’clock, when he quit work and was preparing to clean the floor of the storehouse, he stepped upon a plank in the floor, which was apparently sound, and the same gave way under Rim, causing him to fall, and by reason thereof he sustained serious and painful injuries. When he rented the premises the floor was out of repair in different places, but portions of the floor seemed to be sound and in good condition, and such was the appearance of. those portions of the floor where he usually worked and where he was at the time he received the injuries .above referred to. When he used those portions of the floor that were out of repair he did so with the greatest caution. There was nothing in the appearance of the plank that gave way under him to indicate that it was at all dangerous. ' At the time that he rented the store he called the attention of the defendant to the “ defective condition of the floor,” and she agreed[*150] to repair it. When he paid the second month’s rent he made a similar complaint to the agent of the defendant who collected the rent, and subsequently he reported to the defendant that the floor was out of repair, and she agreed to make the repairs. He complains that his injuries were due to the negligence of the defendant in not having the floor repaired after her attention was called to the same. The defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition, which the court overruled, and she excepted.,-

As against a general demurrer the petition sets forth a cause of action. The common law placed the burden of repairs upon the tenant, and the landlord was not bound to make repairs unless there was an express stipulation to that effect in the contract which created the relation of landlord and tenant. Neither was there any implied warranty on the part of the landlord that the premises were suitable for the purposes for which they were leased, or that they were in a condition to be occupied. 1 Taylor, Land & Ten. (8th ed.) §§175 a, 327, 328; Gear, Land & Ten. § 104. The common-law nrle is not of force in Georgia. Under our code, the landlord, in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary, is bound to keep the premises in repair. Civil Code, § 3123. He is, however, entitled to notice .from the tenant that the premises are out of repair, and if after such notice has. been given the tenant suffers damage on account of the failure of the landlord to make the necessary repairs, the landlord is liable for the damage thus sustained, provided the conduct of the tenant was not such as to preclude him from recovering. Guthman v. Castleberry, 48 Ga. 172. Under the law of this State, it is presumed that the premises leased are in a condition suitable for the purposes for which they were rented, and if such is not the case, and damage results therefrom to the tenant, the landlord is liable, provided he has had notice of the defective condition of the premises and has failed after a reasonable time to make the necessary repairs, and provided also that the tenant has not been guilty óf such negligence as to bar a recovery by him. Whittle v. Webster, 55 Ga. 180. See also Driver v. Maxwell, 56 Ga. 11; White v. Montgomery, 58 Ga. 204; Lewis v. Chisolm, 68 Ga. 40; Miller v. Smythe, 95, Ga. 288; Johnson v. Collins, 98 Ga. 271.

[*151] When the landlord is notified that the premises are out of repair, it becomes his duty to inspect and investigate in order that he may make such repairs as the safety of the tenant requires. It follows, therefore, that when after such notice the landlord fails within a reasonable time to make the repairs, he is chargeable with notice of all the defects that a proper inspection would have disclosed. To this extent ,he might be charged with liability for injury arising from a defect which was hidden so far as the tenant was concerned. When rented premises become out of repair, it is the duty of the tenant to notify the landlord of this fact, and also to abstain from using any part of the premises the use of which would be attended with danger. But even after notice to the landlord the tenant has a right to use those parts of the premises which are apparently in good condition, if there is nothing to call his attention to what may be a hidden defect. The failure of the landlord to repair in such a case would give to the tenant a right of action for any damages sustained by him, and his use of that part of the premises which was in an apparently sound condition would not preclude him from recovering, notwithstanding he had knowledge that there were other parts of the premises in a defective condition. Applying what is above said to the facts of the present case, after the defendant had been notified three times that the floor of the storehouse was out of repair, it became her duty to inspect the premises and make such repairs as were necessary. This is not a case where the landlord is sought to be held liable for injuries arising from defects which were hidden both from the landlord and the tenant. Neither is it a case where the landlord is sought to be held liable on account of defects which were hidden from him and known to the tenant. But it is a case where the landlord is sought to be held liable for injuries resulting from defects which were hidden from the tenant and which the landlord could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence and where the circumstances were such as to require that he should make an investigation which when made would have necessarily resulted in his discovering the defects which were the cause of the plaintiff’s injury. As the petition distinctly alleged that the plaintiff at the time he was injured was in the use of a[*152] portion of the floor which was apparently sound, and that there was nothing to indicate that there was any defect in that portion of the floor, there was nothing appearing on the face of the petition which would authorize the conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of such negligence as would preclude a recovery on his part.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.