Castle v. A & L Development Corp.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Castle v. A & L Development Corp.

216 S.E.2d 96, 234 Ga. 340, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1125

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 6, 1975

Docket29651

StatusPublished

This text of 216 S.E.2d 96 (Castle v. A & L Development Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Castle v. A & L Development Corp., 216 S.E.2d 96, 234 Ga. 340, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1125 (Ga. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, Justice.

This appeal presents the same issues of law and fact as those presented in Hill v. L/A Management Corp., 233 Ga. 341, insofar as the Martha’s Vineyard project is concerned.

The principal difference in this case is that here the plaintiff-appellant filed notice of lis pendens as to a development known as River Mill Club Apartments in addition to Martha’s Vineyard Condominiums.

Regarding River Mill Club Apartments, evidence was introduced that the defendants previously had created a limited partnership and had advised plaintiff that he was to be a general partner in it. Following plaintiff’s discharge, the defendants chose instead to offer plaintiff a limited partnership interest in the River Mill Club limited partnership. No evidence or argument was offered to show that defendants did not have the right under the employment contract to make this change; i.e., to satisfy their obligation under the employment contract by making plaintiff a limited partner in this partnership.

Accordingly, the decision in Hill v. L/A Management Corp. is controlling and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hill, Justice.

This appeal presents the same issues of law and fact as those presented in Hill v. L/A Management Corp., 233 Ga. 341, insofar as the Martha’s Vineyard project is concerned.

The principal difference in this case is that here the plaintiff-appellant filed notice of lis pendens as to a development known as River Mill Club Apartments in addition to Martha’s Vineyard Condominiums.

Regarding River Mill Club Apartments, evidence was introduced that the defendants previously had created a limited partnership and had advised plaintiff that he was to be a general partner in it. Following plaintiff’s discharge, the defendants chose instead to offer plaintiff a limited partnership interest in the River Mill Club limited partnership. No evidence or argument was offered to show that defendants did not have the right under the employment contract to make this change; i.e., to satisfy their obligation under the employment contract by making plaintiff a limited partner in this partnership.

Accordingly, the decision in Hill v. L/A Management Corp. is controlling and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.E.2d 96, 234 Ga. 340, 1975 Ga. LEXIS 1125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castle-v-a-l-development-corp-ga-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack