Beazley v. Williams
| Decision Date | 20 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 28193,28193 |
| Citation | 200 S.E.2d 751,231 Ga. 137 |
| Parties | Billy B. BEAZLEY et al. v. Roy W. WILLIAMS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Bobby G. Beazley, Augusta, for appellants.
Burnside, Dye & Miller, A. Rowland Dye, Augusta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Billy B. Beazley and others filed a complaint against Roy W. Williams and H. G. Carmichael in which the plaintiffs sought an injunction and damages. The complaint shows that the defendant Williams had owned a tract of property in Richmond County, Georgia which he had subdivided with the understanding that the area would be residential, that he had breached such agreement and developed certain lots therein as commercial, that the defendant Carmichael was operating a store for the sale of alcoholic beverages on one of the lots in such subdivision, and it was the plaintiffs' understanding that overtures had been made to the zoning officials to have an adjoining lot rezoned for the sale of alcoholic beverages. An injunction as to the operation of the store for the sale of alcoholic beverages was sought as well as damages for a breach of contract relating to the development of the subdivision for other than residential purposes.
On the hearing for the interlocutory injunction, a motion to dismiss as to the defendant Williams was sustained and the interlocutory injunction as to the defendant Carmichael denied. The appeal is from this judgment. No transcript of the hearing on the interlocutory injunction is included in the record, but the affidavits submitted upon such hearing are included. Held:
1. Treating the motion to dismiss as to the defendant Williams as a motion for summary judgment (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 622, as amended; Code Ann. § 81A-112(b)), the affidavits relating to the development of the property by the defendant Williams showed without dispute that for about 20 years the plaintiffs have had notice of the development of the subdivided property as both residential and commercial and that the plaintiff Billy B. Beazley actually prepared the plats for such development.
Since the appellants expressly excluded the transcript of the hearing from the record to be furnished on appeal, the grounds of the motion to dismiss the complaint as to the defendant Williams are not shown by the record, but if such judgment is authorized for any reason, it must be affirmed. Goodwin v. First Baptist Church of Augusta, 225 Ga. 448, 449, 169 S.E.2d 334.
While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardy v. Ga. Baptist Health Care Systems
...time on motion for summary judgment or other motions. O'Quinn v. O'Quinn, 237 Ga. 653, 654, 229 S.E.2d 428 (1976); Beazley v. Williams, 231 Ga. 137, 138, 200 S.E.2d 751 (1973); Rimes Tractor & Equip. v. Agricredit Acceptance Corp., 216 Ga.App. 249, 250-251, 454 S.E.2d 564 (1995); Brown v. Q......
-
Colbert v. Piggly Wiggly Southern
...supra, summary judgment was affirmed although it had been granted upon a count for which no motion had been made. In Beazley v. Williams, 231 Ga. 137, 138, 200 S.E.2d 751, the Supreme Court held that although it could not be ascertained from the record what grounds were raised in the motion......
-
McFadden Business Publications, Inc. v. Guidry
...Ga.App. 342, 346 [ (173 S.E.2d 723) (1970) .]" Brown v. Moseley, 175 Ga.App. 282, 283, 333 S.E.2d 162 (1985). See Beazley v. Williams, 231 Ga. 137(1), 200 S.E.2d 751 (1973). The issue of res judicata was properly before the trial court for (b) "Res judicata" is a broad term which includes t......
-
Gillis v. American General Life & Accident Ins. Co., A96A1575
...[motion] to dismiss [was] sustained; however, if the judgment is authorized for any reason, it must be affirmed. Beazley v. Williams, 231 Ga. 137, 138, 200 S.E.2d 751 (1973)." Murrey v. Specialty Underwriters, 233 Ga. 804, 806, 213 S.E.2d In Georgia, a corporation cannot be liable for sland......