Davis v. Hybrid Industries, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53456,No. 1,53456,1 |
| Citation | 236 S.E.2d 854,142 Ga.App. 722 |
| Parties | P. T. DAVIS v. HYBRID INDUSTRIES, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Raiford, Hills, Billington & McKeithen, Michael B. McKeithen, Tyler Dixon, Atlanta, for appellant.
Russell & Nardone, A. Joseph Nardone, Jr., Robert G. Nardone, B. W. Crecelius, Decatur, for appellee.
The appellant Davis, through his leasing agency Dome & Company, brought a dispossessory action against Hybrid Industries, and evicted Hybrid from the rented premises after a writ of possession was issued. Hybrid counterclaimed for damages sustained as a result of the allegedly wrongful dispossession. A jury awarded Hybrid actual and exemplary damages; judgment was entered on the verdict; and Davis now appeals, enumerating thirty-five errors allegedly committed by the trial court. We find no error, and the judgment is affirmed.
The appellee, Hybrid, leased a 1000 square foot warehouse cubicle from Warehouse Developers, Inc. The designated use was "T. V. Repair and Storage" for a term from April 1, 1974, until March 31, 1975. The lease agreement was executed through Dome & Company, leasing agent and third party to the lease. Paul T. Davis signed the lease both as president of Warehouse Developers and as agent for Dome & Company. He is the sole proprietor of Dome & Company.
On December 12, 1974, William T. Davis, son of Paul Davis, swore out an affidavit in the State Court of DeKalb County stating that he was "agent at law" for Dome & Company, "landlord." The affidavit further stated that tenant Hybrid had failed to pay rent for December, and a writ of possession was requested. A summons was issued and the affidavit and summons were tacked to the door of the leased cubicle. Hybrid did not respond, and on January 6, 1975, a writ of possession issued and Hybrid's goods were removed from the cubicle by movers hired and supervised by William T. Davis. Most of the goods were moved to a different warehouse for "safekeeping," but several television sets were given to the movers as compensation for their services.
On January 10, 1975, Hybrid filed an answer to the December 12 affidavit and petition, and a counterclaim for conversion was annexed to the answer. A motion to set aside the default was also filed. A response to the motion to set aside was filed on January 23 by Warehouse Developers, and on February 6 an order was entered stating, "The within Motions of Plaintiff, WAREHOUSE DEVELOPERS, INC., to dismiss Defendant's Motion to Set Aside, and to Strike Defendant's Answer, Defenses, and Counter-claims, are hereby sustained." This order was vacated on February 13 by an order which concluded that Warehouse Developer, was not the plaintiff and was a mere stranger to the action, and that the service by tacking was insufficient because personal service had been possible. The judgment of January 6 which granted the writ of possession was declared void and set aside and the defendant's answer was allowed to be filed and the case was set down for trial.
Discovery and a trial followed and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hybrid's counterclaim awarding $53,076 in general damages and $46,000 in exemplary damages.
A motion for new trial was overruled and Paul Davis, d/b/a Dome & Company, appealed.
1. The trial court set aside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fennelly v. Lyons
...Jersey in a letter dated August 18, 2012.17 Sandifer, 211 Ga.App. at 759(2)(c), 440 S.E.2d 479.18 See P.T. Davis v. Hybrid Indus., Inc., 142 Ga.App. 722, 724(1), 236 S.E.2d 854 (1977) (holding that notice sent to a commercial business was insufficient when the tenant did not reside there, b......
-
Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Matassino
...other means of traditional service similar to those required in the Civil Practice Act. See id.; see also, Davis v. Hybrid Indus., Inc., 142 Ga.App. 722, 236 S.E.2d 854, 856 (1977) (concluding that tacking was inappropriate where personal service had been possible). 5. Freddie Mac also cite......
-
Davis v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
...withdrew from further defense on the grounds that the policy did not cover wilful acts by the policy holder. See Davis v. Hybrid Industries, 142 Ga.App. 722, 236 S.E.2d 854. Davis then brought suit against Cincinnati seeking to recover the $99,000, plus punitive damages for tortious refusal......
-
Sandifer v. Long Investors, Inc.
...of this court that "[t]he logical place to serve a resident, private tenant would be at the leased residence." Davis v. Hybrid Indus., 142 Ga.App. 722, 724(1), 236 S.E.2d 854. Appellants, having failed as a matter of law to rebut the inference of consent to constructive delivery of demand f......