Bishop v. International Paper Co.
| Decision Date | 10 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68930,68930 |
| Citation | 325 S.E.2d 870,173 Ga.App. 34 |
| Parties | BISHOP v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Winford K. Bishop, pro se.
Jeffrey M. Smith, Thomas B. Metzloff, Atlanta, for appellees.
Appellant-plaintiff is an attorney. He was engaged to perform certain legal services for appellee-defendant International Paper Company (International). Subsequently, International discharged appellant and retained the legal services of other attorneys, who are the remaining appellee-defendants. A dispute arose concerning the amount of compensation that International owed appellant. This dispute resulted in International's filing an action against appellant in federal court. Appellant, in turn, filed an action against appellees in the Superior Court of Fulton County.
Thereafter, appellees mailed a proposed "Settlement Agreement and General Release" to appellant. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, appellant would receive the sum of $100,000 and the federal suit against him would be dismissed with prejudice, in consideration for which appellant would dismiss his state action with prejudice. Additionally, under the terms of the proposal, appellant would agree to release and forever discharge appellees "from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, damages and suits at law and equity of whatsoever kind, arising in any way whatsoever, directly or indirectly, from the matters described in this 'Settlement Agreement and General Release,' the afore-described suits and litigation and all other claims of any kind whatsoever whether or not related to the aforesaid matters, suits and litigation, it being the intention of the parties that their rights be limited to the provisions of this agreement." The proposal also contained appellees' similar agreement to release and forever discharge appellant. Finally, the proposal contained a provision that the parties would "agree and covenant that the terms of this Agreement shall dispose of any and all obligations and rights which may be deemed to have existed in regard to the matters, claims, suits and litigation described herein and all other claims of any kind whatsoever whether or not related to the aforesaid matters, claims, suits and litigation that existed prior to the execution of this Agreement...."
When the proposed "Settlement Agreement and General Release" was sent to appellant, it already bore the notarized signature of each of the appellees. The agreement indicated that each appellee had affixed his respective signature over a period of time encompassing the latter part of October 1982 and the early part of November 1982. Appellant signed the agreement on December 27, 1982. A check for $100,000, dated December 28, 1982, and made payable to appellant, was delivered. The face of this check provided that it was "[f]or settlement of all claims by [appellant] against [appellees] as detailed in Settlement Agreement and General Release signed by [appellant] on December 27, 1982, and signed by other parties." Appellant negotiated the check. As provided in the agreement, the two pending lawsuits were then dismissed with prejudice.
However, in March of 1983, appellant instituted the instant lawsuit against appellees. The first six counts of appellant's instant complaint constituted the same allegations that had been made in the previous action that appellant had dismissed with prejudice. The seventh and final count was an allegation that appellant had been libeled. The alleged libel was contained in a letter dated December 8, 1982, addressed to four individuals and signed by one of the appellees. The subject of the letter was an affidavit that appellant had filed in the then-pending litigation between the parties, in which affidavit appellant had made certain assertions concerning the four individuals to whom the letter was addressed. The gist of the letter was to inform the four addressees that appellant's affidavit had put their actions "in issue" in the then-pending litigation, with the result that deposing them would be necessary. The alleged libel in the letter was the following sentence: "We of course reject any suggestion that the contents of [appellant's] scandalous affidavit even remotely relates to the truth."
Appellees answered appellant's complaint, raising by way of defense the previous settlement agreement and the dismissal of the previous litigation. Appellees' subsequent motion for summary judgment was granted and appellant appeals.
1. It is clear that summary judgment was properly granted as to the first six counts of appellant's complaint. Those counts merely realleged the same claims against appellees which were raised in the previous action that appellant dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice "means that the same plaintiff cannot again sue [the] same defendant[s] on [the] same cause[s] of action." Rowland v. Vickers, 233 Ga. 67, 68, 209 S.E.2d 592 (1974). (Emphasis in original.) Marchman & Sons, Inc. v. Nelson, 251 Ga. 475, 477, 306 S.E.2d 290 (1983); Coleman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 104 Ga.App. 328, 121 S.E.2d 833 (1961).
Moreover, under the express and unambiguous terms of the "Settlement Agreement and General Release," appellees were to be released and discharged from any liability to appellant with regard to those six claims upon payment of $100,000 to appellant. It is undisputed that appellant executed the agreement and received the contemplated consideration. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kahn v. Columbus Mills, Inc.
...fiduciary duties as directors of Columbus Mills. Compare Lokas v. Greer, 169 Ga.App. 537, 313 S.E.2d 725 (1984); Bishop v. Intl. Paper Co., 173 Ga.App. 34, 325 S.E.2d 870 (1984). (2) Extensive reference is made by both parties in their briefs before this court to OCGA § 14-2-251, which sets......
-
Bishop v. International Paper Co.
...The litigation between appellant-plaintiff and appellee-defendants has already given rise to one appeal. In Bishop v. Intl. Paper Co., 173 Ga.App. 34, 325 S.E.2d 870 (1984), we affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees on the multi-count complaint that appellant had filed......
-
Sparks v. Ellis
...than to "comments of counsel." See Atlanta News Pub. Co. v. Medlock, 123 Ga. 714, 51 S.E. 756 (1905); see also Bishop v. Intl. Paper Co., 173 Ga.App. 34(2), 325 S.E.2d 870 (1984). Thus, this privilege is not applicable to Ellis' claim against Sparks. See generally Quikrete Cos. v. Schelble,......
-
Walker v. Walker
...of the case and the conduct of the parties in connection therewith as in his judgment seem proper.'" Bishop v. Intl. Paper Co., 173 Ga.App. 34, 36(2), 325 S.E.2d 870 (1984), quoting Atlanta News Publishing Co. v. Medlock, 123 Ga. 714(5), 51 S.E. 756 (1905); see also OCGA § 51-5-7(7) (extend......