Searcy v. Godwin
| Decision Date | 05 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48178,No. 1,48178,1 |
| Citation | 129 Ga.App. 827,201 S.E.2d 670 |
| Parties | Floyd H. SEARCY v. Jesse GODWIN |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Michael N. Herndon, Thomasville, for appellant.
Whitehurst & Cohen, Ronald A. Cohen, Thomasville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Jesse Godwin brought suit in the Thomas Superior Court against F. H. Searcy seeking to recover back wages in the amount of $2,340, four years premium on a life insurance policy of $928, and $656.40 on one-half of the premium of a hospitalization policy. It was alleged that the plaintiff was to receive $200 per week from the defendant as wages and that in addition the defendant was to pay the premium on an insurance policy and on hospitalization insurance.
The case came on for trial before a judge sitting without a jury. At the close of the trial, the trial judge entered an order which contained the following finding of facts: 'That prior to August 3, 1968, the plaintiff, Jesse Godwin, entered into an agreement with Floyd H. Searcy under which Godwin was to perform certain services for Searcy in the Dominican Republic for a compensation of $200 per week plus expenses. Godwin did perform these services for a period of 14 weeks for which he was paid a total of $1,310, leaving a balance of $1,490 for this period of employment. The employment agreement was continued and during September and October of 1969, Godwin worked in the Dominican Republic for a period of 8 weeks for which he was paid the sum of $1,318, leaving a balance due of $282 for this period of time or a total due to Godwin by Searcy of $1,772.
'The defendant, Searcy, contends that Godwin was employed not by him personally but by the Fiesta Corporation. The evidence discloses, however, that Mr. Searcy was the alter ego of the Fiesta Corporation and that he in fact on many occasions paid Godwin with his own personal funds later charging same to the company account.
'Mr. Searcy further contends that any obligation which he may have had to Godwin was satisfied by the payment of $1,400 for Dr. Rafael Alcantara, an attorney in the Dominican Republic, and there was introduced into evidence two checks dated June 7, 1970, totaling $1,400 payment to Dr. Rafael Alcantara and bearing the notation 'payment in full for all services Jesse Godwin.' These checks were drawn on the personal account of Floyd H. Searcy at the Citizens Bank of Cairo, Georgia. The checks bear an illegible endorsement which Mr. Searcy testifies as a signature of Dr. Alcantara. The checks were not endorsed by the defendant, Godwin, and according to the testimony of Mr. Searcy, he was informed that Godwin never received any money from Alcantara.
'The evidence discloses that both parties made an effort to obtain a statement or testimony from Attorney Alcantara without success.'
The following conclusions of law were contained in the judgment:
'The contention of the defendant that he has discharged his obligation to Godwin by a payment to Attorney Alcantara constitutes an affirmative defense which is not established by a preponderance of the evidence.'
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial judge entered judgment in the sum of $1,772 in favor of the plaintiff. From this judgment appeal was taken. Held:
1. The defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding that he owed the plaintiff $1,490 for period of employment ending August 3, 1968. This contention is based on the argument that the sum is barred by the statute of limitation, specifically Code Ann. § 3-704 (Ga.L.1943, p. 333).
Defendant's contention is without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FOCUS HEALTHCARE MEDICAL CENTER v. O'NEAL
...and be as effective as, a judgment rendered within the statutory period. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Searcy v. Godwin, 129 Ga.App. 827, 829(1), 201 S.E.2d 670 (1973). See also Ga. Receivables v. Cheatham, 216 Ga.App. 656, 658, 455 S.E.2d 375 (1995) (Smith, J., concurring specially)......
-
Tante v. Herring
...this defense. "A defendant may not avail himself of an affirmative defense which he failed to properly present." Searcy v. Godwin, 129 Ga.App. 827, 829, 201 S.E.2d 670. By failing to assert this defense until after the Herrings received summary judgment on liability, he is in the same posit......
-
Stone v. Green
...230) provides that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. As such, it is waived if not asserted. Searcy v. Godwin, 129 Ga.App. 827, 829(1), 201 S.E.2d 670; New House Products, Inc., et al., v. Commercial Plastics & Supply Corporation, 141 Ga.App. 199(1), 233 S.E.2d 45. Since ......
-
Bogart v. Wis. Inst. for Torah Study
...“may not avail himself of an affirmative defense which he failed to properly present” to the trial court. Searcy v. Godwin, 129 Ga.App. 827, 829(1), 201 S.E.2d 670 (1973). Because Bogart failed to raise the defense of the statute of limitation below, he has waived the issue on appeal. See i......