Haugabrook v. Taylor, 25176
| Decision Date | 22 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 25176,25176 |
| Citation | 225 Ga. 317,168 S.E.2d 162 |
| Parties | Nathaniel HAUGABROOK v. Susie TAYLOR. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
C. B. King, Albany, for appellant.
John R. Rogers, James W. Hurt, Ashburn, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is an action for trespass and nuisance, seeking general, special and punitive damages arising out of the construction of a building by the defendant on the petitioner's property and depriving him of its use. He also asked for injunctive relief to abate the nuisance. The defendant answered denying the trespass as malicious, filed a third party complaint against the grantor in the deeds to both the plaintiff and the defendant, and asked for cancellation of the plaintiff's deed and a deed to the property alleging she purchased the property and went into possession of same after it was pointed out to her by the grantor. The evidence showed that Lot 51 of a certain subdivision was deeded to her although Lot 50 was pointed out to her as her property and she started construction of the dwelling on Lot 50. Thereafter, the third party defendant deeded Lot 50 to the plaintiff. After hearing evidence, the court directed the verdict against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant, requiring the plaintiff to deed Lot 50 to the defendant upon the payment of $600 and the third-party defendant to deed another lot to the plaintiff if he desired to purchase it for $600. A motion for new trial, containing only general grounds was filed, heard and overruled, and the appeal is to this judgment. However, the enumeration of error complains only that the court erred in directing the verdict in that 'the question of whether punitive damages should have been awarded was a question to be decided by the jury.' Held:
It appears that in the verdict directed certain equitable relief was granted against the appellant and the third-party defendant, and all relief sought by the plaintiff was denied. Since no general, special or nominal damages were awarded, and the only error enumerated is on the failure to allow the question of punitive damages to be decided by a jury, the failure to award any damages and the equitable features of the verdict giving the defendant title to the property prevents any additional damages as a claim for punitive damages will not lie when no other damages are recovered. See Code § 105-2002; Foster v. Sikes, 202 Ga. 122, 42 S.E.2d 441; Stewart v. Western Union, 83 Ga.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Austell Bldg. Supply, Inc.
...err in striking the punitive damages, that is, in failing thereafter to award punitive damages in the judgment. See Haugabrook v. Taylor, 225 Ga. 317, 318, 168 S.E.2d 162; Beverly v. Observer Publishing Company, 88 Ga.App. 490(5), 77 S.E.2d 80; Lary v. Gilmer, 125 Ga.App. 604, 605, 188 S.E.......
-
Ryle v. Sliz
...279 S.E.2d 241; Robinson v. Murray, 198 Ga. 690(2), 32 S.E.2d 496; Foster v. Sikes, 202 Ga. 122, 126, 42 S.E.2d 441; Haugabrook v. Taylor, 225 Ga. 317, 318, 168 S.E.2d 162. Accordingly, where the jury arrives at a verdict on the main action for the defendant they never reached the issue of ......
-
Horne v. Drachman
...theory. It is well settled that a "claim for punitive damages will not lie when no other damages are recovered." Haugabrook v. Taylor, 225 Ga. 317, 168 S.E.2d 162 (1969). Nor can appellee recover punitive damages based upon the corporation's refusal to purchase his stock. " 'Exemplary damag......
-
Menchio v. Rymer
...are sustainable if at least nominal damages are recovered, because they are "additional" damages. OCGA § 51-12-5; Haugabrook v. Taylor, 225 Ga. 317, 168 S.E.2d 162 (1969). But it ignores the rule against double awards, which the jury had been instructed and scrupulously To accomplish the ma......