Davis v. Davidson
| Decision Date | 03 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 69976,69976 |
| Citation | 175 Ga.App. 451,333 S.E.2d 648 |
| Parties | DAVIS et al. v. DAVIDSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Robert W. Adamson, John E. Stell, Jr., Winder, for appellants.
Sam S. Harben, Jr., H. Bradford Morris, Jr., Gainesville, for appellees.
Plaintiffs, the owners of certain timberlands, entered into a contract with defendants whereby the defendants would cut and purchase certain pulpwood from the properties of plaintiffs. Following execution of the agreement, plaintiffs filed this action against defendants seeking damages for violations of the agreement. Plaintiffs alleged that sawtimber and hardwood were cut in violation of the agreement and sought recovery of the value of the timber wrongfully cut. Also plaintiffs sought further damages predicated on allegations that defendants damaged the property of plaintiffs by cutting roads, damaging small growing timber and causing erosion of the land.
Defendants were permitted to bring in a third party defendant whom they alleged was an independent contractor with whom they had contracted to thin the pulpwood from plaintiffs' properties. Defendants further alleged that the third-party defendant had cut the unmarked timber and had done unauthorized damage to the real estate owned by plaintiffs.
Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs against defendants for the value of the timber plus an additional sum of $14,000 for damages to plaintiffs' lands. Additionally, the jury found in favor of the third-party defendant. Defendants appeal. Held:
1. Defendants contend that the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to receive a verdict and judgment for both the value of the timber and damage to realty. This contention appears to be predicated primarily upon language in Milltown Lumber Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga.App. 344, 348, 63 S.E. 270, stating that "the obtaining of satisfaction by any one of these [alternative] remedies precludes further proceedings upon the cause of action." This language is an expression of the general rule that double recovery of the amount of damages is not permitted. See Phillips v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 121 Ga.App. 342, 345(1), 173 S.E.2d 723; Malone v. City of Rossville, 107 Ga.App. 271, 272(1), 129 S.E.2d 563. In the case sub judice, the judgment for the value of the timber cut without authorization and the judgment for damage to the realty arose from separate injuries.
It is true that in an action (in trover) for the value of timber cut from the land and not for damages to the land, there is no error in refusing to allow evidence as to how much the land has been damaged. Coody v. Gress Lumber Co., 82 Ga. 793, 800(4), 10 S.E. 218; Milltown Lumber Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga.App. 344, 349, 63 S.E. 270, supra, disapproved on other grounds in Minor v. Fincher, 206 Ga. 721, 733(6), 58 S.E.2d 389. However, we find nothing in this rule to prohibit recovery for both the value of the timber cut and also for incidental injury to the realty (where there is injury to the realty separate and apart from the mere removal of the timber). This enumeration of error is without merit. See in this regard Rowland v. Gardner, 79 Ga.App. 153, 53 S.E.2d 198; Porter v. Rucker, 88 Ga.App. 486, 76 S.E.2d 842.
2. Defendants contend that the jury verdict awarding damages for injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Atlanta v. J.A. Jones Const. Co.
...recovery is not permitted for one injury, that principle has no application here because there were two injuries (Davis v. Davidson, 175 Ga.App. 451, 452, 333 S.E.2d 648): Count I under state law for not awarding Jones the contract as required (see Hilton Constr. Co. v. Rockdale County Bd.,......
-
McDermott v. Middle East Carpet Co., Associated
...for one injury are not permitted under Georgia law. Morreale v. Downing, 630 F.2d 286, 290 (5th Cir.1980); Davis v. Davidson, 175 Ga.App. 451, 333 S.E.2d 648, 649 (1985); Beltz v. Atlanta Coachworks Corp., 172 Ga.App. 604, 323 S.E.2d 901, 903 (1984). MECCA has made an election of remedies b......
-
Force v. McGeachy, s. 76012
...of this nature would appear to conflict with the general rule that double recovery of damages is not permitted. Cf., Davis v. Davidson, 175 Ga.App. 451(1), 333 S.E.2d 648 (recognizing but distinguishing the case facts from the general rule), citing Phillips v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.......
-
Knox Enterprises v. Timbermen, Inc.
...of the two-year-old seedlings which had no value as marketable timber, and damage to marketable timber. See also Davis v. Davidson, 175 Ga.App. 451, 333 S.E.2d 648 (1985). Likewise, we must reject Knox's contention that a "lost profits" analysis under DeVane v. Smith, 154 Ga.App. 442, 443(1......
-
Real Property - T. Daniel Brannan, Stephen M. Lamastra, and William J. Sheppard
...purchase the adjoining tract (cost to cure). Those damages arguably are duplicative and cannot both be recovered. See Davis v. Davidson, 175 Ga. App. 451, 333 S.E.2d 648 (1985) (double recovery for same injury is not permissible). 267. 219 Ga. App. at 46, 463 S.E.2d at 914. 268. Id. at 47-5......