Marietta Yamaha, Inc. v. Thomas
Decision Date | 19 October 1976 |
Docket Number | 31534,Nos. 31533,s. 31533 |
Citation | 229 S.E.2d 753,237 Ga. 840 |
Parties | MARIETTA YAMAHA, INC., et al. v. C. Stuart THOMAS. C. Stuart THOMAS v. MARIETTA YAMAHA, INC., et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Northcutt, Edwards & Germano, W. S. Northcutt, Joseph F. Page, Atlanta, for appellants.
Cofer, Beauchamp & Hawes, Peyton S. Hawes, Jr., Peter B. Glass, Atlanta, for appellee.
Dunwoody and Thomas each owned 50 percent of the stock in Marietta Yamaha, Inc. There was a disagreement between them as to the management of the business and Dunwoody negotiated to buy Thomas' interest. An agreement was entered into whereby the corporation would purchase Thomas' stock, thereby leaving Dunwoody as the sole stockholder. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the agreement contained a noncompetition clause as follws:
Pete Hunter managed Marietta Yamaha prior to the sale of stock and for approximately nine months thereafter. After his discharge by Dunwoody, he obtained a Yamaha franchise for Clayton County, and along with his brother Fred, incorporated and began business. Pete Hunter and Thomas had been close personal friends for a number of years, and Thomas was instrumental in getting Hunter to leave New York and come to Marietta to manage Marietta Yamaha. Several months after Pete and Fred Hunter began business, Thomas made Pete Hunter two separate personal loans ($2,500 and $7,500). It is these personal loans to Hunter that allegedly violate the noncompetition clause of the agreement. Marietta Yamaha alleged in its petition that Hunter was only an agent or representative for Thomas and that Thomas' interest in the business was substantial. By amendment reformation of the sales agreement was sought. Mutual mistake and mistake of the scrivener were alleged. The amendment contended that Paragraph 6(c) was intended to be applicable to a violation of Paragraph 5 of the agreement.
Thomas filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted the motion as to the issue of reformation, but denied summary judgment on the issue of a violation of the noncompetition agreement contained in Paragraph 5.
Marietta Yamaha appeals from the grant of the partial summary judgment and Thomas cross-appeals from the denial of his motion for summary judgment as to the noncompetition issue.
1. The record in this case contained more than 600 pages. A search of the entire record discloses that the only evidence of mistake is Dunwoody's statement that he 'just assumed' that Paragraph 6(c) would also apply to Paragraph 5. The terms of Paragraph 5 of the agreement absolutely forbid Thomas to engage in any competition for a period of five years. Paragraph 6 allowed an 'out' for Thomas after three years by forfeiting the remaining payments due under the contract. There was no genuine issue of fact as to mutual mistake or mistake of the scrivener; therefore, the trial court did not err in granting Thomas' motion for summary judgment on the issue of reformation.
2. Prior to the Act of 1975 (Ga.L.1975, p. 757), it was well settled that the denial of a motion for summary judgment was not reviewable by the appellate courts in the absence of a timely certificate of immediate review having been obtained in the trial court. See Carroll v. Campbell, 226 Ga. 700, 177 S.E.2d 83 (1970); Souter v. Carnes, 229 Ga. 220, 222, 190 S.E.2d 69 (1972) and Southernaire Corporation v. Worley, 230 Ga. 486, 488, 197 S.E.2d 726 (1973).
There is no provision for review of the denial of the summary judgment in Code Ann. §§ 81A-156(h) or 6-701(a)2(A), except by direct appeal with a certificate of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jack V. Heard Contractors, Inc. v. A. L. Adams Const. Co.
...a denial of a motion to dismiss, and Marathon involved a denial of a motion for summary judgment-Marathon reversed Marietta Yamaha v. Thomas, 237 Ga. 840, 229 S.E.2d 753-another denial of a motion for summary judgment issue, "based upon what (the Supreme) court held in Executive Jet ..." 24......
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hunt
...this denial without requiring interlocutory appeal procedures. Ga.L.1975, p. 757 (Code Ann. § 6-701(a)2(A)); Marietta Yamaha, Inc. v. Thomas, 237 Ga. 840(2), 229 S.E.2d 753 (1976). It is apparent that the Supreme Court intended, by that ruling, to require that appeals from all orders of den......
-
First Nat. Bank of Atlanta v. Wynne
...the issue of whether the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment is properly before us (See Marietta Yamaha Inc. v. Thomas, 237 Ga. 840, 229 S.E.2d 753; but compare Executive Jet Sales, Inc. v. Jet America, Inc., 242 Ga. 307, 248 S.E.2d 676), as the grant of plaintiff's motion......
-
Mahler v. Paquin
...review of the denial of a summary judgment except by direct appeal with a certificate of immediate review. Marietta Yamaha, Inc. v. Thomas, 237 Ga. 840, 842(2), 229 S.E.2d 753. Defendant did not comply with the proper procedure and in the absence of compliance with Code Ann. § 6-701(a)2 (Ga......