Security Devel. c. Co. v. Williamson

13 Citing cases

  1. Rossi v. Oxley

    269 Ga. 82 (Ga. 1998)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that "[w]ithout the element of mutual control, no joint venture can exist

    Oxley admits that in this case there is no evidence that Kilpatrick controlled Rossi's judgment in treating her. Without the element of mutual control, no joint venture can exist.Kissun v. Humana, 267 Ga. 419, 420 ( 479 S.E.2d 751) (1997); see also Security Dev. Inv. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 ( 145 S.E.2d 581) (1965) ("There must be not only a joint interest in the objects and purposes of the undertaking, but also a right, express or implied of each member of the joint venture to direct and control the conduct of the other.") The lack of such evidence in this case does not preclude the possibility that professionals may agree in other situations that their professional judgment is to be exercised jointly.

  2. Murphey, Taylor Ellis, Inc. v. Williams

    223 Ga. 99 (Ga. 1967)   Cited 7 times

    '" Clement A. Evans Co. v. Waggoner, 197 Ga. 857 (1c) ( 30 S.E.2d 915). "Broadly, there is a joint enterprise or adventure when two or more combine their property or labor, or both, in a joint undertaking for profit, with rights of mutual control, provided the arrangement does not establish a partnership." Atlanta Metallic Casket Co. v. Southeastern Wholesale Furniture Co., 82 Ga. App. 353, 358 ( 61 S.E.2d 196); Holland v. Boyett, 212 Ga. 458 (1) ( 93 S.E.2d 662); Security Development c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 ( 145 S.E.2d 581). In 48 CJS 866, Joint Adventures, § 14 it is said: "Members of a joint adventure are liable on a contract entered into by a member pursuant to authority conferred on him by his associates.

  3. Kitchens v. Brusman

    280 Ga. App. 163 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 18 times

    Id. at 83. See also Kissun v. Humana, Inc., 267 Ga. 419, 420 ( 479 SE2d 751) (1997); Security Dev. Investment Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 ( 145 SE2d 581) (1965). The contract for professional services between Southern Regional and South Suburban specifically provides that the hospital did not have, and could not exercise, any control or direction over the manner in which independent-contractor pathologists provided pathology services.

  4. Kelleher v. Pain Care of Ga., Inc.

    246 Ga. App. 619 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    Rossi v. Oakley, 269 Ga. 82 (1) ( 495 S.E.2d 39) (1998) (footnote omitted); see Pope v. Goodgame, 223 Ga. App. 672, 674 (2) (c) ( 478 S.E.2d 636) (1996).Security Dev. Inv. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 (1) ( 145 S.E.2d 581) (1965). See City of Eatonton v. Few, 189 Ga. App. 687, 690 (2) ( 377 S.E.2d 504) (1988) (finding authorized that swimming pool jointly operated and maintained by city and county was a joint enterprise, notwithstanding parties' determination between themselves how control over the facility would be exercised).

  5. City of Eatonton v. Few

    189 Ga. App. 687 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 18 times
    Concluding that evidence supported jury's finding that city operated joint venture with county

    [Cits.]" Security Dev. c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 (1) ( 145 S.E.2d 581) (1965). See also Time Fin. Svcs. v. Hewitt, 139 Ga. App. 270, 272 (2) ( 228 S.E.2d 176) (1976).

  6. Time Financial Services v. Hewitt

    139 Ga. App. 270 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 7 times

    A joint venture or undertaking for profit occurs when there exist rights of mutual control as to the conduct of the various members of the enterprise. Holland v. Boyett, 212 Ga. 458 (1) ( 93 S.E.2d 662); Security Development c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 ( 145 S.E.2d 581). 3. Here the relationship of borrower and lender was admittedly established as to Hewitt and Timmons, but such a relationship does not establish a joint venture.

  7. Guaranty Title Ins. Co. v. Wilson

    179 S.E.2d 280 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)

    There was not only a joint interest of Wilson and Paramount (Wolfe) in the objects and purposes of the undertaking here but there also existed an equal right, express or implied, to direct and control the conduct of each other. See Holland v. Boyett, 212 Ga. 458 ( 93 S.E.2d 662); Security Devel. c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524 ( 145 S.E.2d 581). While I agree the escrow agent for Electrical Workers could not "set up a defense of a debt owed by the claimant to another" yet Guaranty was not paid the money to pay the commissions twice, but to pay such funds when and if the earnest money paid to the broker as joint adventurer with the other brokers was fully satisfied.

  8. Southern Pine Products, Inc. v. Waller

    122 Ga. App. 288 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 5 times

    There is a joint enterprise or adventure when two or more combine their property or labor, or both, in a joint undertaking for profit with rights of mutual control, provided the arrangement does not establish a partnership. Murphey, Taylor Ellis, Inc. v. Williams, 223 Ga. 99, 102 ( 153 S.E.2d 542); Security Development c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 ( 145 S.E.2d 581). Applying this general rule to the evidence in opposition to the motions for summary judgment, there appear to be genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was a joint venture and joint liability for the alleged tortious conduct. The trial court properly denied the motions for summary judgment.

  9. Floyd v. Colonial Stores, Inc.

    121 Ga. App. 852 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 21 times

    . . There must be not only a joint interest in the objects and purposes of the undertaking, but also a right, express or implied of each member to the joint venture to direct and control the conduct of the other." Security Development c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524 ( 145 S.E.2d 581). Although this is a contract case, the joint enterprise theory of agency is frequently applied where the "profit" is not pecuniary, and where the joint control arises not from agreement but from the mere fact that both parties assumed to act in the premises. Here Floyd initiated the project of returning his horse to his premises with his automobile (Hodges driving) in his presence and he actually carried the trip to its conclusion.

  10. Gainesville c. Mart v. First Fed. c. Assn

    174 S.E.2d 230 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 11 times

    See Holland v. Boyett, 212 Ga. 458 (1) ( 93 S.E.2d 662); Healan v. Huff, 81 Ga. App. 202, 205 (1) ( 58 S.E.2d 500); 30 AmJur 945, Joint Adventures, § 10." Security Development c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524, 525 ( 145 S.E.2d 581). Also see Code § 75-102. The relationship of borrower and lender was established.