McCleary v. White Repair & Contracting Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McCleary v. White Repair & Contracting Co.

378 S.E.2d 897, 190 Ga. App. 268, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 184

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 10, 1989

Docket77920

StatusPublished

This text of 378 S.E.2d 897 (McCleary v. White Repair & Contracting Co.) 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

McCleary v. White Repair & Contracting Co., 378 S.E.2d 897, 190 Ga. App. 268, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 184 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellee-plaintiff filed suit, seeking to recover against appellant-defendant for the breach of a written contract to make repairs to an apartment complex. According to the terms of the agreement, appellee, as the “Contractor,” had contracted with “Fulton Associates, Inc. & Azalea Place Apts.,” as the “Owner.” The contract was signed by William Fulton, as “Agent for Owner.” Appellant answered and raised, among his other defenses, the absence of any contractual relation between appellee and himself.

Appellant subsequently moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, but certified its order for immediate review. We granted appellant’s application for an interlocutory appeal to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact remains as to his personal liability on the contract.

The undisputed evidence of record with regard to the relationship between appellant and Fulton Associates, Inc., is, in all material aspects, identical to that in White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Oviedo, 188 Ga. App. 672 (373 SE2d 784) (1988). “[I]t is clear that the relationship between [appellant] and . . . Fulton Associates [Inc.] was that of employer and independent contractor rather than that of principal and agent.” White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Oviedo, supra at 673 (1). It follows that here, as there, no genuine issue of material fact remains as to appellant’s personal liability on the contract which was negotiated and signed by an independent contractor rather than by appellant’s agent. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

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

Carley, Chief Judge.

Appellee-plaintiff filed suit, seeking to recover against appellant-defendant for the breach of a written contract to make repairs to an apartment complex. According to the terms of the agreement, appellee, as the “Contractor,” had contracted with “Fulton Associates, Inc. & Azalea Place Apts.,” as the “Owner.” The contract was signed by William Fulton, as “Agent for Owner.” Appellant answered and raised, among his other defenses, the absence of any contractual relation between appellee and himself.

Appellant subsequently moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied appellant’s motion, but certified its order for immediate review. We granted appellant’s application for an interlocutory appeal to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact remains as to his personal liability on the contract.

The undisputed evidence of record with regard to the relationship between appellant and Fulton Associates, Inc., is, in all material aspects, identical to that in White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Oviedo, 188 Ga. App. 672 (373 SE2d 784) (1988). “[I]t is clear that the relationship between [appellant] and . . . Fulton Associates [Inc.] was that of employer and independent contractor rather than that of principal and agent.” White Repair & Contracting Co. v. Oviedo, supra at 673 (1). It follows that here, as there, no genuine issue of material fact remains as to appellant’s personal liability on the contract which was negotiated and signed by an independent contractor rather than by appellant’s agent. The trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 S.E.2d 897, 190 Ga. App. 268, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccleary-v-white-repair-contracting-co-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack