Hatcher v. Hancock County Com'rs of Roads and Revenues
| Decision Date | 26 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 32248,32248 |
| Parties | James F. HATCHER, Jr. v. HANCOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ROADS AND REVENUES et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Peugh & Bradley, W. B. Bradley, Milledgeville, for appellant.
D. D. Veal, Eatonton, for appellees.
Dr. James F. Hatcher, Jr. filed a petition, designated a writ of mandamus, against the Hancock County Commissioners of Roads and Revenues and the individual members thereof in their representative capacities, seeking to compel payment of money owed him under a contract of employment Hatcher had entered into with the Hancock County Hospital Authority.
It appears that Dr. Hatcher entered into an employment contract with the Hospital Authority. The contract was submitted to the Board of Commissioners, which approved the contract but did not enter the contract on their minutes. The Hospital Authority breached the contract by failing to pay Dr. Hatcher's salary; suit was filed against the Hospital Authority and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff Dr. Hatcher.
Upon failure of the Hospital Authority to honor the judgment against it, Dr. Hatcher filed his petition for a writ of mandamus against the Board of Commissioners to require them to honor the contract made between plaintiff and the Hospital Authority and approved by that Board; and to pay to plaintiff the amount of the judgment pending against the Hospital Authority in his favor.
The Board of Commissioners filed a motion to dismiss. At the hearing which followed, oral and documentary evidence outside the pleadings were presented to the court, and the motion was treated as one for summary judgment. After making findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Board of Commissioners and dismissed the plaintiff's mandamus action.
Dr. Hatcher appeals, complaining that the lower court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of mandamus as contrary to law and contrary to the evidence.
We affirm.
1. Although the proceeding in the court below was a special proceeding by way of writ of mandamus, the Civil Practice Act provides that it is controlling and shall apply to all motion practice. Code Ann. § 81A-181. Therefore, under Code Ann. § 81A-112(b), when matters outside the pleadings were presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion to dismiss was properly treated as one for summary judgment.
2. The pleadings and the evidence presented, conclusively showed that the contract in issue was a contract entered into between Dr. Hatcher and the Hancock County Hospital Authority. There was no showing of a written contract made by the Board of Commissioners with Dr. Hatcher. No contract made with Dr. Hatcher had been entered in the Board of Commissioners' minute book.
"All contracts entered into by the ordinary with other persons in behalf of the county shall be in writing and entered on his minutes." Code Ann. § 23-1701.
While a person has a legal right to have a written contract made with the county entered on the official minutes, (Board of Commissioners of Morgan County v. MacDougald Construction Co., 157 Ga. 595, 122 S.E. 317; Milburn v. Commissioners of Glynn County, 112 Ga. 160, 37 S.E. 178; Douglas v. Austin-Western Road Machinery Company, 173 Ga. 834(1), 161 S.E. 811); if the contracts are not in writing and not entered on the proper minutes, they are not enforceable. James v. Douglas County, 131 Ga. 270, 62 S.E. 185 (1908); Spears v. Robertson, 170 Ga. 368, 152...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cherokee County v. Hause
...a contract is unenforceable. Floyd v. Thomas, 211 Ga. 656, 87 S.E.2d 846 (1955), illustrates this. So do Hatcher v. Hancock County Commrs., etc., 239 Ga. 229, 236 S.E.2d 577 (1977), and Merk v. DeKalb County, 226 Ga.App. 191, 191-192, 486 S.E.2d 66 (1997) (Merk's "sole cause of action [was]......
-
Ogletree v. Chester
...by mandamus the payment of salary). The strict view reflected in Pickering was followed more recently in Hatcher v. Hancock County Commissioners, 239 Ga. 229, 236 S.E.2d 577 (1977), where a physician claimed to have a contract of employment (with a hospital authority) that had been submitte......
-
Montgomery County v. Sharpe
...law is clearly established that in order to be enforceable, a contract with a county must be in writing[,] Hatcher v. Hancock County Commrs[.] &c., 239 Ga. 229, 236 S.E.2d 577 (1977); PMS Constr. Co. v. DeKalb County, 243 Ga. 870, 257 S.E.2d 285 (1979)[,] [n]evertheless, in certain narrowly......
-
Carnes v. Crawford
...must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought, and (2) there must be no other adequate remedy. Hatcher v. Hancock County Comrs., 239 Ga. 229, 231, 236 S.E.2d 577 (1977); Ungar v. Mayor, etc., of Savannah, 224 Ga. 613, 614, 163 S.E.2d 814 (1968); State Highway Dept. v. Reed, 211 ......