Ga. Kaolin Co v. Walker

• Decision Date: 03 December 1936
• Docket Number: No. 25541.,25541.
• Parties: GEORGIA KAOLIN CO. v. WALKER.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

54 Ga.App. 742

189 S.E. 88

GEORGIA KAOLIN CO.

v.WALKER.

No. 25541.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Dec. 3, 1936.

Syllabus by the Court.

A petition which alleges that the lessor in a contract of rental had broken several of its terms with the willful and malicious purpose of destroying the business of the lessee, and had thus destroyed it, does not set forth an actionable tort, the proper remedy of the lessee being an action for breach of contract

Error from Superior Court, Twiggs County; J. L. Kent, Judge.

Action by W. B. Walker against the Georgia Kaolin Company. To review an adverse judgment, the defendant brings error.

Judgment reversed.

W. B. Walker sued Georgia Kaolin Company alleging that on June 28, 1928, he entered into a contract with the company to operate a commissary on its premises to sell supplies, notions, and merchandise to the employees of the company; that the company and the plaintiff adopted a system under which signed orders from employees of the company for merchandise supplied by the plaintiff would be recognized by the defendant, and deductions made as to the employees; that the contract was determinable at the will of either party by giving thirty days written notice to the other party; that the contract gave the plaintiff the exclusive right to maintain a commissary on the defendant's premises, and thatduring said term the defendant would not grant a like right to other persons; that, pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff placed in the commissary building on the defendant's grounds a stock of merchandise, and proceeded to operate a commissary business, and did so until July 15, 1934, when he was driven out of business by the willful and malicious conduct of the defendant through its agent and employee; that from the beginning until about June 1, 1934, the plaintiff did a lucrative business, but on or about that time the defendant willfully and maliciously conspired to and did violate the terms of the agreement, and by willful and malicious acts intended to injure the plaintiff, finally ruined and destroyed his business, credit, and standing, which action resulted in the complete destruction of his business on July 15, 1934, on which date the defendant terminated the contract without notice to him; that notwithstanding the contract provided that the defendant would not grant a like right to others, the defendant violated its terms by making deductions from its pay roll, on account of its employees, for goods purchased by them from competitors of the plaintiff not located on its premises, and by so doing willfully aided competitors of the plaintiff with the intent to injure and damage the plaintiff and drive him from business; that on January 1, with the willful purpose of destroying the business of the plaintiff, the defendant would make full deduction from the amount due its employees to competitors of the plaintiff, and would knowingly leave unpaid bills due the plaintiff; that when the plaintiff was finally driven from his business there remained on his books and due him by the employees of the defendant the sum of $1,500, occasioned by the willful and malicious conduct of the defendant in rendering the plaintiff unable to collect the same; that about the spring of 1933, the defendant actually went into competition with the plaintiff by selling batteries, tires, auto parts, and accessories to its employees, and that its employees, at the instance and suggestion of the defendant, would go to Macon and buy goods and charge them to the defendant, and that the defendant would make deductions from their pay rolls and send remittances to competing firms, all of which was done with the design to injure and damage the plaintiff and drive him from business; that the plaintiff earned $333 a month in his business, and since he was forced out of business by the defendant, he has lost seven months' profits, or a total of $2,331; that by reason of being forced to close his business, he lost his credit and his standing in the commercial world was ruined, all of which was occasioned by the conduct of the defendant, all to his injury and damage in the sum of $25,000. The plaintiff prayed for damages in that sum and the sum of $1,500 for bills alleged to be due him by the defendant's employees, and the sum of $2,331 as earnings for a period of seven months since his business was destroyed. The copy of the contract attached to the petition provided that the defendant, for the sum of $5 per month, rented to the plaintiff a certain commissary building at the plant of the defendant, the contract to be determinable at the will of either party by giving to the other party thirty days' written notice, that the defendant agreed that the plaintiff might maintain in the building a store for the purpose mainly of selling groceries, supplies, and other merchandise to the defendant's employees, and the defendant agreed to put into effect a system, under reasonable regulations, under which signed orders from the employees of the defendant for merchandise and supplies...