Partain v. Maddox
| Decision Date | 23 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 49152,49152,2 |
| Citation | 131 Ga.App. 778,206 S.E.2d 618 |
| Parties | J. O. PARTAIN v. Joseph G. MADDOX |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In this civil action against a public officer for acts done under color of office, there was no evidence that such actions amounted to wrongfulness, wilfulness, bad faith, oppression, corruption, fraud, deceit, malice, etc.; therefore, the denial of the defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v. was error.
Savell, Williams, Cox & Angel, Henry Angel, Atlanta, for appellant.
George G. Finch, Atlanta, for appellee.
On March 7, 1968, the plaintiff, Joseph G. Maddox, was appointed as a member of the State of Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to fill an unexpired term. On April 10, 1969, Joseph G. Maddox was appointed to a full seven-year term to the State Board of Pardons and Paroles by the Honorable Lester Maddox, said appointment being confirmed by the Senate on June 12, 1969. On the morning of the swearing in of Joseph G. Maddox for the full term above-mentioned, Governor Lester Maddox had Joseph G. Maddox sign an undated resignation to be kept by the Governor. On January 6, 1971, Governor Lester Maddox accepted the resignation of Joseph G. Maddox and sent him a Western Union Telefax signed by the Governor notifying him that he was accepting his resignation. Joseph G. Maddox subsequently told newspaper reporters at a press conference that he intended to continue his duties as a member of the Board of Pardons and Paroles and would disregard the action of the Governor.
Upon learning that the plaintiff, Joseph G. Maddox, intended to disregard the acceptance of his resignation and to continue to perform his duties as a member of the said board, Governor Maddox instructed Frank Blankenship, Assistant Attorney General assigned to the Governor as legal advisor, to go to the chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles to have him change all of the locks on the doors to the board in order to secure the confidentiality of the files of said board. Frank Blankenship conveyed the Governor's instructions to the defendant, J. O. Partain, Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
The defendant, J. O. Partain, Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, then passed on the Governor's instructions to an employee of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, instructing said employee to advise the office manager that Governor Maddox directed that the locks be changed on the offices of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and the locks were changed. On January 7, 1971, when the plaintiff appeared at the board offices, he was allowed entry only to retrieve his personal effects.
On January 13, 1971, six days after the locks were changed, Joseph G. Maddox filed the instant suit in the Superior Court of Cobb County against J. O. Partain, as Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles and individually, seeking to enjoin the defendant from interfering with his performance of his duties and from preventing him from entering his office, and seeking actual damages as well as $100,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's allegedly interfering with the plaintiff's performance of his duties. At 4:55 p.m., January 13, 1971, the Honorable Luther C. Hames, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Cobb County, signed a temporary restraining order enjoining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to pursue his duties and ordering the defendant to allow the plaintiff to enter his office for those purposes, and setting the case down for a show-cause hearing on January 19, 1971. Said temporary restraining order was obtained ex parte and was served upon the defendant on January 14, 1971. On January 14, 1971, after newly assuming the office of Governor of the State of Georgia, the Honorable Jimmy Carter declared the office of Joseph G. Maddox vacant, and officially appointed Richard A. Chappell as a member of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, replacing the said Joseph G. Maddox.
On January 19, 1971, Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General of the State of Georgia, appeared in behalf of the defendant, and, in addition to denying the claims made by the plaintiff, sought quo warranto, seeking a declaration that the office be declared vacant. On January 20, 1971, the Honorable Luther C. Hames, Jr., entered an order which in essence held that whether or not the resignation of Joseph G. Maddox was valid was an issue to be determined by the jury, and that the restraining order previously entered against the defendant be continued until final adjudication of the issue. On January 29, 1971, the Honorable Luther C. Hames, Jr., granted a certificate of immediate review of the said order. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General for the State of Georgia, filed a notice of appeal in the defendant's behalf, and the plaintiff, through his attorney, filed a notice of cross-appeal from the said order, all parties being dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial court. In that fashion, the issue of the right to hold the office was submitted to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
On May 20, 1971, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued its order and opinion on the issue of the right to hold the said office. The Supreme Court ruled that the resignation obtained by Governor Lester Maddox was unconstitutional and void, and concluded that the plaintiff, Joseph G. Maddox, was entitled to hold the said office for the full term of his appointment.
On June 11, 1971, the case having been remanded to the Superior Court of Cobb County, the judgment of the Supreme Court was made the order of the trial court.
On September 3, 1971, the plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint seeking $2,500 attorney fees as damages in the suit against the defendant individually for interference with the plaintiff's right to pursue the duties of his office during the period January 7, 1971, through January 13, 1971. A pre-trial order was entered in the case on April 25, 1972, signed by the Honorable Luther C. Hames, Jr. The jury trial began on May 14, 1973, and on the first day of trial, the plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint striking all claims for punitive damages and seeking $5,000 in attorney fees as damages.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant, J. O. Partain, made a motion for directed verdict on the grounds that: (a) the defendant was clothed with governmental immunity, (b) there had been no evidence indicating bad faith, willful or malicious conduct, and (c) the only evidence of damages introduced in the case was that of attorney fees incurred in adjudicating the right of title to the office. The defendant Partain thus argued that he was entitled to the entry of verdict and judgment as a matter of law. The trial judge overruled the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. At the conclusion of the presentation of the defendant's evidence, the defendant again renewed and made a motion for a directed verdict on the same grounds mentioned above. Upon the second day of trial after the evidence was concluded but prior to final arguments to the jury, the plaintiff, over the defendant's objection, filed an additional amendment to the plaintiff's complaint, withdrawing the plaintiff's demand for attorney fees 'eo nomine', and seeking damages pursuant to Code § 105-2004 for court costs in the amount of $280 and $3,000 in attorney fees as expenses, seeking a total judgment in the amount of $3,280. The trial court ruled that there was no sufficient showing of the incurring of a $280 court cost, but allowed the amendment to be filed instructing the plaintiff's attorney that he would allow him to argue and to seek attorney fees in the amount of $3,000 since that was 'the only proof that has been offered.'
The case was submitted to the jury and resulted in verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $3,000. Subsequently, the defendant filed his motion for judgment n.o.v. or in the alternative for new trial. The motion for new trial was later amended. The trial judge denied both motions and the defendant appeals.
The thrust of the defendant's appeal is (1) that the defendant was clothed with governmental immunity and (2) that attorney fees are not recoverable as an item of damages in cases of this nature.
1. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lathrop v. Deal
......See, e.g., Maddox v. Coogler , 224 Ga. 806, 808–809, 165 S.E.2d 158 (1968) (suit to enjoin members of state Mineral Leasing Commission from executing leases of ...(Citations and punctuation omitted). See also Partain v. Maddox , 131 Ga.App. 778, 781–782, 206 S.E.2d 618 (1974) (discussing Gormley ). In developing the doctrine, the courts saw it as a practical ......
-
Thompson v. Spikes, CV486-316.
...injured a pedestrian, not entitled to protections of statutory predecessor of O.C.G.A. § 36-33-4). 23See, e.g., Partain v. Maddox, 131 Ga.App. 778, 206 S.E.2d 618 (1974) (parole board member entitled to immunity, in absence of showing of wilful, malicious or corrupt action, where he instruc......
-
Guthrie v. Irons
...of the officer's authority, and without wilfulness, malice, or corruption." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Partain v. Maddox, 131 Ga.App. 778, 781, 206 S.E.2d 618 (1974). The determination as to whether an action is discretionary or ministerial depends on the character of the specific ......
-
Holsey v. Hind
...its nature, the officer acting is exempt from liability.' " Hennessy v. Webb, 245 Ga. 329, 330, 264 S.E.2d 878; quoting Partain v. Maddox, 131 Ga.App. 778, 206 S.E.2d 618; and see Nelson v. Spalding County, 249 Ga. 334, 290 S.E.2d 915. This rule serves a good public policy. While the Georgi......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...extended "'to errors in the determination both of law and of fact.'" Id. at 779-80, 618 S.E.2d at 646 (quoting Partain v. Maddox, 131 Ga. App. 778, 782, 206 S.E.2d 618, 621 (1974)). 336. Id. at 780, 618 S.E.2d at 647. "[The plaintiff] merely established that [the defendants] failed to compl......