Jones v. Spindel, 45282
| Decision Date | 16 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45282,No. 2,45282,2 |
| Citation | 122 Ga.App. 390,177 S.E.2d 187 |
| Parties | Candler JONES et al. v. G. D. SPINDEL |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The verdict and judgment is excessive to the extent that it indicates bias or prejudice on the part of the jury. Such judgment cannot stand as a matter of law and must be reversed.
This case was here previously on the pleadings. See Jones v. Spindel, 113 Ga.App. 191, 147 S.E.2d 615. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Spindel and against Jones, Young, and Curtis Homes, Incorporated, for $85,000, itemized as follows: $20,700 as damages for the unauthorized use of Spindel's plans, $10,130 in added interest, $29,170 in exemplary damages, and $25,000 in attorney's fees. The defendants appeal from the judgment, the order overruling a motion for new trial, and other rulings.
Westmoreland, Hall & Bryan, John L. Westmoreland, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.
Webb, Parker, Young & Ferguson, John Tye Ferguson, Atlanta, for appellee.
1. The defendants assert error on the admission in evidence of an agreement by Modular Components, Inc., to indemnify Curtis Homes and others for certain uses of Spindel's plans. Assuming the general objection made at the time to be sufficient, this document, when considered with the testimony of a witness for the defendants who executed the agreement for Modular Components, discloses a possible bias of this witness in the outcome of the litigation, and was admissible as a matter affecting his credibility.
2. The tenth enumeration is based on an excerpt from the charge consisting of a statement of the claim of the plaintiff for exemplary damages and attorney's fees and the substance of Code § 105-2002, accompanied by an explanation of the meaning. The evidence authorized the charge, and the explanation, even if somewhat repetitious, in no way discloses an undue emphasis on this aspect of the case. No harmful error is disclosed by this enumeration.
3. In the eleventh enumeration, error is asserted on an excerpt from the charge authorizing the jury to consider an award of attorney's fees. The charge as given is in accord with Code § 20-1404 as codified from the common law, and although this section appears under the contracts title of the Code, it is, in appropriate situations, applied in principle to tort actions. See Editorial Note, Code Ann. § 20-1404. The argument in the brief is limited to the contention 'that the evidence did not warrant submitting the question of attorney's fees to the jury.' The evidence as a whole, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, is sufficient to authorize the charge on attorney's fees.
4. Error is asserted in the twelfth enumeration on the refusal of the trial judge to give a requested charge to the effect that if the jury should find that the plaintiff and Modular Components, Inc., jointly owned the plans, then the plaintiff could not maintain his action alone, and the jury must find for the defendants. When the case was here previously this court determined that under the pleadings Modular Components was not an indispensable party to the plaintiff's action for infringement of his common law copyright, but noted that if the contrary should later appear from the evidence, the action must then fail. Jones v. Spindel, supra, at p. 195, 147 S.E.2d 615.
The evidence of the relationship between Spindel and Modular Components, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendants, is insufficient to support the conclusion in law and fact that Modular Components was a joint owner of the plans which the plaintiff prepared. Instead, it clearly appears that Spindel had a common law copyright in the plans and Modular Components had agreed to pay Spindel a fee of $50, reduced in some cases to $35, for each unit constructed from the plans using materials furnished by Modular Components, and the unauthorized use of the plans by the defendants as disclosed by the proof is shown to be entirely outside the scope of the arrangement with Modular Components. The trial judge properly refused to give the requested charge.
5. In the fourteenth enumeration, error is asserted on the direction of a verdict in favor of the plaintiff on the counterclaim of Curtis Homes, which is erroneously entitled as a cross-action. See § 13, CPA; Code Ann. § 81A-113. This claim is based on the legitimate use of plans prepared by Spindel, but furnished by Modular Components, to Curtis Homes, with materials for construction, by reason of a modification of the plans and extra expenses resulting therefrom in the course of constructing 20 units to meet the requirements of the City of Atlanta to prevent direct access in these units from the kitchen to a toilet. The gist of the claim is that of damages for a breach of contract, and the only contract proved was with Modular Components, not Spindel. The defendant Curtis Homes having failed to prove its counterclaim, the trial judge properly directed the jury not to consider this claim.
6. The remaining enumerations are based on the overruling of the motion for new trial on the general grounds and on special grounds asserting excessiveness, and on the overruling of a motion for judgment n.o.v. directed to the entire verdict, as well as the verdict for attorney's fees and exemplary damages. These involve a consideration of whether the verdict is excessive and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict as a whole, as well as the sufficiency of the evidence to support the various items included therein. No part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford
...deterrence award may be set aside as reflecting undue passion and prejudice, rather than an enlightened conscience. Jones v. Spindel, [122 Ga.App. 390, 392(6) (177 SE2d 187) ]." Hosp. Auth. of Gwinnett County v. Jones, 259 Ga. 759, 762(2), n. 9, 386 S.E.2d 120, supra. See also OCGA § "As [I......
-
Jones v. Spindel
...'law of the case' having been established on the two previous appeals in Jones v. Spindel, 113 Ga.App. 191, 147 S.E.2d 615 and 122 Ga.App. 390, 177 S.E.2d 187, to which we will make reference hereafter. The case was submitted to the jury on two counts with the first count seeking to recover......
-
Hubacher v. Volkswagen Central, Inc.
...154 Ga.App. 824, 827, 269 S.E.2d 905 (1980); Rustin Oldsmobile, 123 Ga.App. at 680(4), 182 S.E.2d 178, supra; Jones v. Spindel, 122 Ga.App. 390, 395, 177 S.E.2d 187 (1970). The Lawhons' contentions that the actual damages could not exceed the amount demanded in the complaint are without mer......
-
Trust Co. Bank of Augusta N.A. v. Henderson
...trouble and expense, the jury may allow them." This section may be applied to suits in both contract and tort. Jones v. Spindel, 122 Ga.App. 390, 391(3), 177 S.E.2d 187 (1970). We agree with appellant that there is no issue of "bad faith" here. (See Division 1.) While issues of stubborn lit......