Duckworth v. Collier

• Decision Date: 26 October 1982
• Docket Number: Nos. 64815,64816,s. 64815
• Citation: Duckworth v. Collier, 296 S.E.2d 640, 164 Ga.App. 139 (Ga. App. 1982)
• Parties: DUCKWORTH v. COLLIER, et al. SMART v. DUCKWORTH.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 640

296 S.E.2d 640

164 Ga.App. 139

DUCKWORTH v. COLLIER, et al.

SMART v. DUCKWORTH.

Nos. 64815, 64816.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 26, 1982.

Fred A. Gilbert, John Matteson, Atlanta, for Duckworth.

John L. Green, Atlanta, for Collier et al.

QUILLIAN, Chief Judge.

This is an action to recover damages for breach of a lease and trover.

The action arose from the following circumstances: defendant Collier is the executrix of the estate of her husband, Clarence Collier, who owned a parcel of real property on Stewart Avenue in southwest Atlanta which he leased to defendant Smart. Early in 1977 Duckworth, the plaintiff, rented a portion of the property from Smart on a month-to-month basis and conducted a retail used auto sales business on it. In September, 1977 Duckworth and Smart entered into a written one-year lease agreement on the same property Duckworth had been renting. On October 3, 1977, Smart, without any notice to Duckworth, leased the same property to a corporation doing business as Wholesale Cars of Georgia. Shortly thereafter representatives of Wholesale Cars took possession of the property, ordered Duckworth off the premises and prevented him from reentering to remove his tools and other business equipment.

In July, 1978 Duckworth apparently commenced an action for damages against Smart for interfering with his business by breaching the lease. This action was apparently dismissed without prejudice and thereafter, in December, 1981, the present action was commenced against Smart and Mrs. Collier. The case went to a trial on one count of breach of the lease contract and one count of trover, alleging that defendants had refused to return Duckworth's tools to him after demand.

At trial, the trial court granted a directed verdict to Mrs. Collier on the breach of lease count on Duckworth's acknowledgment that he had no case against her on that count. The trial court also dismissed the trover count against both defendants, apparently on the grounds that the statute of limitation had run and insufficiency of the evidence. In so doing, the court refused to let appellant produce evidence that he had initially filed the action in 1978, was dismissed without prejudice and filed the present action within six months thereafter. On the remaining count of breach of the lease, the trial court ruled that no tortious or punitive damages could be recovered because tort aspects were dismissed on statute of limitation grounds. The court also ruled that the proof was insufficient to support actual damages. The case went to the jury on the breach of lease count limited to nominal damages only. The jury returned a verdict of $1,500 for Duckworth from which he appeals. Smart cross-appeals.

Duckworth alleges that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Mrs. Collier on both counts, in refusing to charge on actual damages and in directing a verdict for defendants as to tort liability for the breach of the lease based on the statute of limitations. Smart's only allegation of error is that the verdict was not supported by the evidence and that the award of nominal damages was excessive. Held:

1. The trial court did not err in directing a verdict for both defendants on the trover count because the statute of limitations had run and in effect doing the same on any tortious damages arising from the breach of the lease. The action was filed in December,...