Stone Mountain Aviation, Inc. v. Rollins Leasing Corp.
Decision Date | 08 March 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 69442,69442 |
Citation | 329 S.E.2d 247,174 Ga.App. 35 |
Parties | STONE MOUNTAIN AVIATION, INC. et al. v. ROLLINS LEASING CORPORATION. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
B.J. Roberts, Decatur, for appellants.
Bartow Cowden III, Daryl L. Kidd, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellee-plaintiff filed suit against appellant-defendant Stone Mountain Aviation, Inc. (SMA), seeking to recover on an open account. SMA answered, denying that it was indebted to appellee on the account. SMA then filed a third-party complaint against appellant American Asphalt & Paving, Inc. (AA & P). In this posture, the case was tried before the court sitting without a jury. At the close of all of the evidence, the trial court granted appellee's oral motion to amend its complaint so as to name AA & P as a joint defendant in the main action. The trial court then entered a joint and several judgment for appellee against both SMA and AA & P. The trial court also entered judgment in favor of SMA against AA & P in the third-party action. Both SMA and AA & P appeal.
1. SMA enumerates the general grounds. The assertion is that there was no evidence that SMA's alleged account with appellee had been opened by an agent vested with authority to conduct such a transaction on behalf of the corporation.
The trial court's finding that SMA was liable on the account that had been opened in its name was predicated upon the theory of agency by ratification. (Emphasis in original.) Harris v. Miller Bros. Farms, 161 Ga.App. 377, 378, 288 S.E.2d 639 (1982). " Powers v. City of Cordele, 143 Ga.App. 363, 365, 238 S.E.2d 721 (1977). In essence, the trial court found that SMA had ratified the opening of an account with appellee in its name by failing to repudiate that act after receiving notice thereof. Wielgorecki v. White, 133 Ga.App. 834, 838, 212 S.E.2d 480 (1975). Royal Mfg. Co. v. Denard & Moore Constr. Co., 137 Ga.App. 650, 652, 224 S.E.2d 770 (1976).
After a careful review of the evidence, we find that there was at least some evidence to support a finding of SMA's ratification of the opening of the account in its name. Although SMA's president testified that he had objected to the account being in the name of that corporation "[w]hen we first received the first document, ..." the employee of appellee to whom these objections were purportedly made testified that the objections had not been voiced until "after all the rentals were ... entirely completed, the equipment was turned in...." (Emphasis supplied.) Nations v. Russell, 68 Ga.App. 329, 331, 22 S.E.2d 756 (1942). The trial court's finding that SMA was liable on the account by ratification was not without a sufficient evidentiary basis.
2. AA & P asserts that the trial court erred in granting the motion to add it as a defendant in the main action and, consequently, in entering judgment against it in favor of appellee.
While OCGA § 9-11-15(a), in conjunction with OCGA § 9-11-21, is authority for a trial court to grant a motion to add a party to a pending action (see Aircraft Radio Systems, v. Von Schlegell, 168 Ga.App. 109, 111(2), 308 S.E.2d 211 (1983)), the grant of such a motion does not dispense with the requirement that a new defendant be served. Robinson v. Bomar, 122 Ga.App. 564, 567, 177 S.E.2d 815 (1970), overruled on other grounds Robinson v. A. Constr. Co., 132 Ga.App. 591, 208 S.E.2d 605 (1974). This is true even if the new defendant is already in the case as a third-party defendant, for such a change "would materially alter [his] status and exposure." Robinson v. Bomar, supra, 122 Ga.App. at 567, 177 S.E.2d 815.
In the original capacity in which AA & P was brought into the case, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford
...with process in the usual way even if the added defendant has knowledge of the pending suit. Stone Mountain Aviation v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 174 Ga.App. 35, 36, 329 S.E.2d 247 (1985); Charming Shoppes, etc., v. Parrish, 214 Ga.App. 729, 730-731, 448 S.E.2d 781 (1994). A judgment against a......
-
Marwede v. Eqr/Lincoln Ltd. Partnership
...to add a party is granted, ... service of process must be made in the usual way ....' (Cits.)" Stone Mountain Aviation v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 174 Ga.App. 35, 36(2), 329 S.E.2d 247 (1985). But an answer is not required in response to an amended pleading unless ordered by the court. OCGA §......
-
HAP Farms, Inc. v. Heard
...suit. Gaskins v. A.B.C. Drug Co., 183 Ga.App. 518, 519(1), 359 S.E.2d 364. Even as to added parties (Stone Mtn. Aviation v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 174 Ga.App. 35, 36(2), 329 S.E.2d 247), a judgment is null and void where there is no valid service or waiver of service (Estate of Thurman v. D......
-
CMT Inv. Co. v. Automated Graphics Unlimited, Inc.
...491, 313 S.E.2d 709 (1984). Therefore, the present case is controlled by our recent decision in Stone Mtn. Aviation v. Rollins Leasing Corp., 174 Ga.App. 35, 329 S.E.2d 247 (1985). There, in Division 2, the court held that even where a party is added as a direct defendant in an action in wh......