Epps Air Service, Inc. v. Lampkin
| Decision Date | 04 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 27233,27233 |
| Parties | EPPS AIR SERVICE, INC. v. Richard L. LAMPKIN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
The administrative decision pleaded as an estoppel in this action on a contract did not decide the issue made in the contract case, whether an employee had been discharged 'for justifiable causes,' and it was error to hold that the administrative decision estopped the employer from offering proof that the employee was rightfully discharged under the contract.
Smith, Cohen, Ringel, Kohler, Martin & Lowe, Sam F. Lowe, Jr., J. Arthur Mozley, Atlanta, for appellant.
Webb, Parker, Young & Ferguson, Paul Webb, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
This case is before this court on grant of the writ of certiorari. See Epps Air Service, Inc. v. Lampkin, 125 Ga.App. 779, 189 S.E.2d 127.
Epps Air Service, Ins., sued Lampkin on an open account. Lampkin filed a counterclaim for an amount which he alleged Epps Air Service owed him for salary. When the case was tried, without the intervention of a jury, the trial judge rendered judgment for Epps Air Service on the open account, and judgment for Lampkin in the sum of $13,404, plus interest, on his counterclaim. Epps Air Service appealed from that judgment.
The issues between the parties on the counterclaim grew out of a contract of purchase by Epps Air Service of the aviation business of Lampkin. The purchase price was $50,000, evidenced by a promissory note of $35,000, payable in instalments of $1,000 per month, and an indebtedness of $15,000, payable from one-half of the net profits of the flight department. The contract provided that Lampkin should become an employee of the purchaser, in charge of the flight department, at a salary of $1,000 per month, and that the purchaser could terminate the employment 'only for justifiable causes' so long as the purchaser is obligated to the seller under the contract. Epps Air Service discharged Lampkin, and he sued to recover salary which he alleged was due him under the contract.
Two issues were decided by the Court of Appeals, contrary to the contentions of Epps Air Service, and the rulings on both issues are assigned as error in the application for certiorari.
1. Epps Air Service contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding, in the first division of its opinion, that the evidence did not demand a finding that a promissory note for $13,500, executed by Epps Air Service, Inc., to Lampkin, personally endorsed by Ernest P. Epps, payable in instalments of $500 per month, which note was given in lieu of the balance of the indebtedness of $15,000, payable from the net profits of the flight department, was an accord and satisfaction for the entire contract.
We have carefully examined the first division of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and conclude that the correct result was reached in that division. We therefore affirm this ruling by the Court of Appeals.
2. In the second division of the opinion of the Court of Appeals it was held that a decision by the State Department of Labor, Employment Security Agency, could be pleaded and proved as an estoppel against Epps Air Service on the question of whether Lampkin was discharged 'for justifiable causes,' and that the trial court did not err in excluding testimony on the question of whether Lampkin was discharged 'for justifiable causes' under the terms of the written agreement.
After his discharge Lampkin applied for unemployment compensation. By an amendment to his counterclaim he asserted that the administrative decision of the State Department of Labor, entered after an appearance by both parties in the present case, decided the question of whether Lampkin had been discharged for justifiable causes, and that Epps Air Service was estopped from offering evidence to prove that his discharge was for justifiable causes. The record introduced in support of the alleged estoppel contains decisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malloy v. State
...unless certain requirements are met. Swain v. State, 251 Ga.App. 110, 113, 552 S.E.2d 880 (2001). See Epps Air Svc. v. Lampkin, 229 Ga. 792, 795(2), 194 S.E.2d 437 (1972); Blackwell v. Ga. Real Estate Comm., 205 Ga.App. 233, 234, 421 S.E.2d 716 (1992). Specifically, administrative decisions......
-
Swain v. State
...346 S.E.2d 387; see also Smith v. State, 180 Ga.App. 309(1), 349 S.E.2d 4 (1986) (relying on Wyatt). 16. Epps Air Svc. v. Lampkin, 229 Ga. 792, 795(2), 194 S.E.2d 437 (1972); Blackwell v. Ga. Real Estate Comm., 205 Ga.App. 233, 234, 421 S.E.2d 716 (1992); Hunter v. City of Warner Robins, 84......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin
...of the Employment Security Agency acted as an estoppel and res judicata to relitigate these issues (see Epps Air Service, Inc. v. Lampkin, 229 Ga. 792, 795, 194 S.E.2d 437; Id. Epps Air Service, Inc. v. Lampkin, 125 Ga.App. 779, 189 S.E.2d 127, reversed), defendant "Moore's opposition to Bu......
-
Hunter v. State
...decided and the parties in the administrative proceeding are the same as those involved in the litigation. Epps Air Svc. v. Lampkin, 229 Ga. 792, 795(2), 194 S.E.2d 437 (1972). The letter proved only that the license suspension was withdrawn. It shed no light on whether defendant had refuse......
-
Travers v. Jones: Is "fact Preclusion" a Death Knell for Section 1983 Employment Claims Against Local Governments by Civil Service Employees?
...236. Id. at 377-78. 237. Id. at 378. 238. 382 S.E.2d 679 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989). 239. Id. 240. Id. at 681. 241. Id. 242. Id. at 679-80. 243. 194 S.E.2d 437 (Ga. 1972). 244. Hunter, 382 S.E.2d at 680. 245. Id. at 681. 246. 313 S.E.2d 100 (Ga. 1984). 247. Hunter, 382 S.E.2d at 681. 248. 384 S.E.......