Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Georgia Caselaw:
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources

This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks! Georgia Caselaw
STOLZ, Judge.
Action for damages. DeKalb State Court. Before Judge Smith.
1. The judgment of the trial judge sitting without a jury will be affirmed if there is any evidence to support it. Lester Colodny Const. Co. v. Allen, 129 Ga. App. 545 (199 SE2d 917) and cits.
2. Goldgar relies on King v. Foreman, 71 Ga. App. 75 (30 SE2d 214), as the basis for a reversal in this case. The material distinction between that case and the case before us is that in King there was no evidence that the general manager acted in the transaction or received or retained any money other than as general manager and agent of the corporation; whereas, in the case before us, Goldgar, as principal stockholder (80%) of Northside, was the "alter ego" of the corporation. Neither the corporation nor Goldgar gave anything for the money and in good conscience should not be permitted to retain it. See Magyer v. Brown, 116 Ga. App. 498, 501 (157 SE2d 825) and cits.
EVANS, Judge, concurring specially.
The question here is whether the agent is responsible for money received by the agent's employer-corporation, where the agent did not personally receive the money and received no benefit therefrom.
In the instant case, the agent was Goldgar, who deposited plaintiffs check for $5,000 to the credit of Northside Air Terminal, Inc., which was then or soon thereafter became insolvent and plaintiff received nothing for his money. The majority cites King v. Foreman, 71 Ga. App. 75 (30 SE2d 214), and seeks to distinguish it because in the King case, the agent received none of the money and did not act as "alter ego" of the corporation. Definitely this is a distinction between King and the case sub judice, for if we followed King, we would reverse the present case.
But a full-bench decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia in Alexander v. Coyne, 143 Ga. 696 (85 SE 831) holds the agent to be liable where the corporation received the money "where the officer knew of the plaintiff's right to the money." Therefore, relying on Alexander, supra, which is quite contrary to King, supra, I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion, but not all that is said therein.
Langford, Staples & Staples, L. Doyal Langford, Rose Higby Staples, for appellees.
Lynwood A. Maddox, for appellant.
Friday May 22 10:13 EDT

This site exists because of donors like you.


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!

Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004