Bagwell-Hughes, Inc. v. McConnell
| Decision Date | 10 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | INC,BAGWELL-HUGHE,No. 24772,24772 |
| Citation | 224 Ga. 659,164 S.E.2d 229 |
| Parties | v. Barry McCONNELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in the plaintiff's action predicated upon an alleged oral agreement relating to real property.
Walter W. Calhoun, Sid M. Kresses, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Jule W. Felton, Jr., H. Boyce Connell, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
The grant of summary judgment terminating an action seeking to establish and enforce a contract for development and enhancement of real property is the subject matter of this appeal.
Bagwell-Hughes, Inc., filed the complaint against Barry M. McConnell in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, alleging an oral agreement, its performance insofar as possible by the plaintiff, and breach thereof by the defendant.
The complaint alleged in substance that in May 1967 the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for the development of described 84.1 acres of land, and the planning, promoting, and carrying out of the development for commercial and multi-family uses; that plaintiff was to plan a use for the property which would substantially increase its market value over the price paid by defendant; that upon the consummation of such planning and the rezoning of the property the parties were to share equally in the enhanced market value of the property after crediting the defendant with his purchase price and all costs incurred by him; that the effect of this agreement was to pay the defendant one-half of the profit, or anticipated profit, over cost of the property to him as a result of the agreement and services rendered by the plaintiff and the costs incurred by it.
The complaint further alleged that the plaintiff at its own expense employed a land surveyor and land planner to lay out a proposed use of the property for commercial and multi-family purposes and to prepare a zoning plat and a plan for a shopping center and apartments on the property, and paid such land surveyors $60 for these services. Also, plaintiff caused the filing of a successful rezoning petition and paid the $80 cost of this. Plaintiff spent a great amount of time and effort in the preparation of the zoning plat and plan and the rezoning of the property, and has in all respects performed duties, obligations and undertakings under the agreement. The defendant had full knowledge of such performance and accepted it in accordance with the agreement between them.
The plaintiff also alleged that upon its request of some evidence of its interest in the property resulting from the agreement and its performance thereunder, the defendant has failed and refused to provide such evidence, and has entered a contract with another person for the sale of the property at a stated price. Plaintiff asserts that the court should declars its interest in the property as being a one-half undivided interest, after repayment to the defendant of his original investment, or, in the alternative, it should be awarded $81,015.
The prayers of the complaint were that the defendant be temporarily enjoined from consummating a sale of the property, that the plaintiff's undivided interest of ownership in the property be declared, and that the plaintiff recover $81,015 and costs of court.
In his answer the defendant denied the agreement alleged and asserted that the plaintiff's complaint was barred by the Statute of Frauds. Subsequently he moved for summary judgment.
Consideration of the defendant's motion for summary judgment involved the plaintiff's response thereto, the pleadings, affidavits and depositions.
It is our view that regardless of any application of the Statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
University Computing Co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp.
...Burden v. Thomas, 104 Ga.App. 300, 121 S.E.2d 684 (1961); West v. Downer, 218 Ga. 235, 127 S.E.2d 359 (1962); Bagwell-Hughes, Inc. v. McConnell, 224 Ga. 659, 164 S.E.2d 229 (1968).9 The plaintiff claimed the word 'management' was intended to mean the right to make decisions, as it normally ......
-
In re Galbreath, Bankruptcy No. 99-60517.
...Powell v. Estate of Austin, 218 Ga.App. 446, 448-49, 462 S.E.2d 378, 380 (1995); see also, e.g., Bagwell-Hughes, Inc. v. McConnell, 224 Ga. 659, 659-61, 164 S.E.2d 229, 230 (1968). Here, DAC asserts that it made the advances to GCG in reliance on Galbreath's oral promises and that the essen......
-
Agsouth Farm Credit v. West, A19A0964
...862 (1997) ; Bridges v. Reliance Trust Co ., 205 Ga. App. 400, 401 (2), 422 S.E.2d 277 (1992).13 See Bagwell-Hughes, Inc. v. McConnell , 224 Ga. 659, 661-662, 164 S.E.2d 229 (1968) ("The first requirement of the law relative to contracts is that there must be a meeting of the minds of the p......
-
Sawyer v. Citizens and Southern Nat. Bank
...cannot be enforced in any form of action if its terms are incomplete or incomprehensible ..." [Cit.] Bagwell-Hughes, Inc. v. McConnell, 224 Ga. 659, 661-662, 164 S.E.2d 229 (1968). The trial court, therefore, did not err in rejecting Sawyer's argument that there was an accord and b. Sawyer ......
-
Appendix I University Computing Co. v.Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974)
...v. Thomas, 104 Ga.App. 300, 121 S.E.2d 684 (1961); West v. Downer, 218 Ga. 235, 127 S.E.2d 359 (1962); Bagwell-Hughes, Inc. v. McConnell, 224 Ga. 659, 164 S.E.2d 229 (1968). [9] The plaintiff claimed the word “management” was intended to mean the right to make decisions, as it normally is t......