Dixie Management Corp. v. Hubbard

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Dixie Management Corp. v. Hubbard

194 S.E.2d 118, 127 Ga. App. 401, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 900

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 3, 1972

Docket47435

StatusPublished

This text of 194 S.E.2d 118 (Dixie Management Corp. v. Hubbard) 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

Dixie Management Corp. v. Hubbard, 194 S.E.2d 118, 127 Ga. App. 401, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 900 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

Hall, Presiding Judge.

In an action to foreclose a lien for labor and materials, the plaintiff appeals from the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. The trial court certified this order for immediate review following a mistrial when the jury failed to reach a verdict.

1. The enumeration of error recites the following order of the trial court dated April 14, 1972: "Plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict having been heard and denied by me on April 10, 1972, and the jury failing to return a verdict, which resulted in a subsequent mistrial being declared on April 10, 1972. The court hereby enters this written order denying said motion for directed verdict and hereby certifies same for immediate review by direct appeal.” The appeal is maintainable. Code Ann. §6-809 (d); Housing Authority of City of Douglas v. Marbut Co., 229 Ga. 403 (191 SE2d 785).

2. The plaintiff contends that the defendant-owner failed to [402]*402carry the burden of showing that all the money he paid to the contractor was disbursed to those having valid claims for labor and materials which went into his property. While the trial was highly confusing, evidence was presented on this issue. The president of the contracting company testified that he had handled all disbursements of the company and that all the funds received from the defendant had been used for the payment of bills incurred in the construction of his house. The fact that he produced no business records to back up this oral testimony (he said they had been impounded by the bankruptcy court) goes only to weight and credibility. See Short & Paulk Supply Co. v. Dykes, 120 Ga. App. 639 (171 SE2d 782).

Argued September 11, 1972 Decided October 3, 1972 Rehearing denied October 24, 1972. Ernest J. Nelson, Jr., Davis & Stringer, Robert H. Stringer, for appellant. Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford & Irvin, Henry M. Hatcher, Jr., for appellee.

3. Plaintiff also contends that defendant failed to show that other suppliers were paid according to legal priority. The contention has no merit. The only payment made after this plaintiff filed its lien was to another supplier in satisfaction of a pending lawsuit. The court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, J., concurs. Pannell, J., concurs specially.

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

Hall, Presiding Judge.

In an action to foreclose a lien for labor and materials, the plaintiff appeals from the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. The trial court certified this order for immediate review following a mistrial when the jury failed to reach a verdict.

1. The enumeration of error recites the following order of the trial court dated April 14, 1972: "Plaintiff’s motion for directed verdict having been heard and denied by me on April 10, 1972, and the jury failing to return a verdict, which resulted in a subsequent mistrial being declared on April 10, 1972. The court hereby enters this written order denying said motion for directed verdict and hereby certifies same for immediate review by direct appeal.” The appeal is maintainable. Code Ann. §6-809 (d); Housing Authority of City of Douglas v. Marbut Co., 229 Ga. 403 (191 SE2d 785).

2. The plaintiff contends that the defendant-owner failed to [402]*402carry the burden of showing that all the money he paid to the contractor was disbursed to those having valid claims for labor and materials which went into his property. While the trial was highly confusing, evidence was presented on this issue. The president of the contracting company testified that he had handled all disbursements of the company and that all the funds received from the defendant had been used for the payment of bills incurred in the construction of his house. The fact that he produced no business records to back up this oral testimony (he said they had been impounded by the bankruptcy court) goes only to weight and credibility. See Short & Paulk Supply Co. v. Dykes, 120 Ga. App. 639 (171 SE2d 782).

Argued September 11, 1972 Decided October 3, 1972 Rehearing denied October 24, 1972. Ernest J. Nelson, Jr., Davis & Stringer, Robert H. Stringer, for appellant. Hatcher, Meyerson, Oxford & Irvin, Henry M. Hatcher, Jr., for appellee.

3. Plaintiff also contends that defendant failed to show that other suppliers were paid according to legal priority. The contention has no merit. The only payment made after this plaintiff filed its lien was to another supplier in satisfaction of a pending lawsuit. The court did not err in denying the motion for a directed verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian, J., concurs. Pannell, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E.2d 118, 127 Ga. App. 401, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dixie-management-corp-v-hubbard-gactapp-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack