Dollar v. First Bank of Clayton County

Decision Date10 March 1980
Docket NumberNo. 59325,59325
Citation266 S.E.2d 566,153 Ga.App. 789
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

Jack A. Wotton, Atlanta, Charles A. Gravitt, Morrow, for appellant.

Lee Hutcheson, Morrow, for appellee.

QUILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment. Held :

"The party opposing a motion for summary judgment is entitled to a liberal construction in his favor of the pleadings and evidence. (Cits.)" Central Soya Co. v. Bundrick, 137 Ga.App. 63, 67, 222 S.E.2d 852, 855. So construed the record shows that plaintiff-appellant Dollar sold his retail liquor sales business, consisting of two stores, to one Williamson in February 1976. Williamson borrowed $40,000 from defendant-appellee bank and gave as collateral all inventory and equipment of the business. By June 1976 Williamson was in such financial difficulty that the bank was ready to foreclose. Dollar contended that he agreed to manage or operate the business for the bank until a purchaser could be found. Dollar conducted the business from June through September 1976, when it was sold. The state sales and federal social security taxes for the period Dollar was operating the business were not paid to the taxing authorities. Dollar subsequently was personally assessed for these taxes by the taxing agencies and the assessments became final.

Dollar brought this suit against the bank for reimbursement for the taxes assessed against him. In addition to the foregoing matters Dollar alleged that during the period for which the taxes were assessed, he was operating the business for and in behalf of the bank at its request and that the bank was therefore liable over to him for these business expenses. The bank moved for summary judgment, denying by affidavit that Dollar had operated the business on its behalf. Dollar responded with a contradicting affidavit. The trial court granted the bank's motion and Dollar appeals.

The theory of a motion for summary judgment is that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved and the movant is entitled to judgment on the law applicable to the established facts construed in favor of the opposing party. Ellington v. Tolar Const. Co., 237 Ga. 235, 227 S.E.2d 336.

Here there is a clear issue of material fact as to whether Dollar was operating the business for the bank. If this issue is resolved in Dollar's favor, the relationship between Dollar and the bank can be characterized as that of agent and principal, since "(t)he relation of principal and agent arises whenever one person, expressly or by implication, authorizes another to act for him . . ." Code Ann. § 4-101; Greenbaum v. Brooks, 110 Ga.App. 661(2), 139 S.E.2d 432; Butler v. Moore, 125...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hodsdon v. Whitworth
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 10, 1980
    ... ... involving more than 600 acres located in Franklin County, Georgia, Stanley N. Hodsdon, as purchaser, conveyed by two ... to a security deed from the seller to the Federal Land Bank of Columbia. Both of these instruments were styled as ... ...
  • First Bank of Clayton County v. Dollar
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • September 16, 1981
    ...The trial court's grant of appellant's motion for summary judgment was reversed by this court in Dollar v. First Bank of Clayton County, 153 Ga.App. 789, 266 S.E.2d 566. Thereafter, a jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee for $15,603.13 and $4,867.71 in attorney fees. Appellant urges......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT