American Key Corp. v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

Court of Appeals of Georgia

American Key Corp. v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

256 S.E.2d 618, 150 Ga. App. 21, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2073

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1979

Docket57494

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 S.E.2d 618 (American Key Corp. v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Key Corp. v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 256 S.E.2d 618, 150 Ga. App. 21, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2073 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

Underwood, Judge.

This is a proceeding instituted by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) pursuant to Code Ann. Ch. 61-3 for possession of premises needed for a MARTA transit station but being withheld by American Key Corporation. The record reveals that whatever interest American Key may have had in the premises has been acquired by MARTA through condemnation proceedings in another court and that MARTA now has possession of, and fee simple title to, the premises in question. Accordingly, any question as to the propriety of the lower court’s order granting possession to MARTA in this dispossessory proceeding is moot and need not be ruled upon. Vlahos v. DeLong, 132 Ga. App. 722, 724 (2) (209 SE2d 12) (1974); Lee v. Tollerson, 139 Ga. App. 446, 447 (2) (228 SE2d 595) (1976); Code Ann. § 6-809 (b). See also Gaddis v. Georgia S. & F. R. Co., 145 Ga. App. 826 (245 SE2d 8) (1978).

Nor do we find any reason for reversal with respect to the trial court’s order releasing to MARTA the cash bond it had posted. The court had required it as a condition to granting the writ of possession and its purpose, as the trial court stated in the order, was "to indemnify the defendant, American Key Corporation, for any and all damages which it may obtain as a result of its [counterclaims].” It is clear from the record that American Key subsequently dismissed these counterclaims obviating the need for the bond, and thereafter MARTA dismissed its petition with the result that the court, with no further proceedings before it, allowed MARTA to [22]*22withdraw the bond. We find no error since it had lost whatever raison d’etre it may have ever had.

Argued March 6, 1979 Decided April 24, 1979 Rehearing denied May 14, 1979 Tony Center, for appellant. Kutak, Rock & Huie, Terrence Lee Croft, David G. Russell, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Banke, P. J., concurs. Carley, J., concurs specially.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Underwood, Judge.

This is a proceeding instituted by the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) pursuant to Code Ann. Ch. 61-3 for possession of premises needed for a MARTA transit station but being withheld by American Key Corporation. The record reveals that whatever interest American Key may have had in the premises has been acquired by MARTA through condemnation proceedings in another court and that MARTA now has possession of, and fee simple title to, the premises in question. Accordingly, any question as to the propriety of the lower court’s order granting possession to MARTA in this dispossessory proceeding is moot and need not be ruled upon. Vlahos v. DeLong, 132 Ga. App. 722, 724 (2) (209 SE2d 12) (1974); Lee v. Tollerson, 139 Ga. App. 446, 447 (2) (228 SE2d 595) (1976); Code Ann. § 6-809 (b). See also Gaddis v. Georgia S. & F. R. Co., 145 Ga. App. 826 (245 SE2d 8) (1978).

Nor do we find any reason for reversal with respect to the trial court’s order releasing to MARTA the cash bond it had posted. The court had required it as a condition to granting the writ of possession and its purpose, as the trial court stated in the order, was "to indemnify the defendant, American Key Corporation, for any and all damages which it may obtain as a result of its [counterclaims].” It is clear from the record that American Key subsequently dismissed these counterclaims obviating the need for the bond, and thereafter MARTA dismissed its petition with the result that the court, with no further proceedings before it, allowed MARTA to [22]*22withdraw the bond. We find no error since it had lost whatever raison d’etre it may have ever had.

Argued March 6, 1979 Decided April 24, 1979 Rehearing denied May 14, 1979 Tony Center, for appellant. Kutak, Rock & Huie, Terrence Lee Croft, David G. Russell, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Banke, P. J., concurs. Carley, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.E.2d 618, 150 Ga. App. 21, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-key-corp-v-metropolitan-atlanta-rapid-transit-authority-gactapp-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack