Southern Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Firemen's Benevolent Ass'n

5 Citing cases

  1. Rains v. Dolphin Mortgage Corp.

    241 Ga. App. 611 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that the person at issue was an independent contractor when the evidence showed that the employer could not control the way the person performed his work and "[t]he only evidence that [the employer] had the right to control the time, manner, or method of [the independent contractor's] work is that [the employer] provided him with training on how to prepare loan documents"

    Got-It Hardware Gifts v. City of Ashburn, 155 Ga. App. 214, 215 ( 270 S.E.2d 380) (1980).Southern Federal Sav. Loan Assoc. v. Firemen's Benevolent Assoc., 72 Ga. App. 663, 666 ( 34 S.E.2d 674) (1945); see also Medley v. Boomershine Pontiac-GMC Truck, 214 Ga. App. 795, 797-799 (4) ( 449 S.E.2d 128) (1994) (whether ratification of forgery occurred is question of fact where employee was acting outside the scope of his employment but for the benefit of his employer and employer retained benefits of his actions). We find sufficient evidence exists to create a genuine issue of material fact about whether McEarchern's actions were ratified. His actions were taken for Dolphin's benefit, and McCarthy acknowledged that she and Dolphin retained the benefits of those actions. There is evidence that Dolphin, through McCarthy (its admitted employee and the office manager), not only knew of but directed McEarchern's actions. Because we find these facts sufficient to create a jury question on whether McEarchern was an agent via ratification, we reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Dolphin.

  2. Zappa v. Ewing

    156 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967)

    In this contention the appellant is in error for the reason that a foreclosure of a lien for labor on real property in such a case as this, where the labor was performed on real property, was a mistaken remedy rather than the election of an inconsistent remedy which would bar another proper foreclosure. Southern Fed. S. L. Assn. v. Firemen's Benev. Assn., 72 Ga. App. 663, 667 ( 34 S.E.2d 674) and cases cited. However, the general demurrer of the defendant should have been sustained for the reason that the purported lien proceeding did not allege whether the lien was sought against real property or personal property.

  3. Winn v. National Bank of Athens

    138 S.E.2d 89 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 4 times

    The choice of one remedy by filing an action is irrevocable. Land v. Hall, 46 Ga. App. 404 ( 167 S.E. 711) and cases cited; Groover v. Savannah Bank c. Co., supra; Southern Federal c. Assn. v. Firemen's Benevolent Assn., 72 Ga. App. 663 ( 34 S.E.2d 674); Crane v. Atlanta c. Nat. Bank, 40 Ga. App. 83 ( 149 S.E. 58). Hence the plaintiff could not amend his first action so as to strike so much of his first action as was inconsistent with the second. But his effort to so amend precludes him from asserting that the first action was and is void for lack of prayer for process. He cannot contend that the first action is dead and try to treat it as living.

  4. Padgett v. Collins

    81 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)   Cited 8 times

    I think that the plaintiff ratified the acts of Martin if Martin was purporting to act for him. If such ratification took place, the title to the car passed to the plaintiff, and he would be entitled to recover it from whoever received it from Martin. The acts of Martin were equivalent to a forgery of the check. If a forgery can be ratified, certainly the purchase here could be. Southern Federal c. Assn. v. Firemen's c. Assn., 72 Ga. App. 663, 666 ( 34 S.E.2d 674); Groover v. Savannah Bank Trust Co., 60 Ga. App. 357 ( 3 S.E.2d 745). I do not agree that Martin got a legal title and the plaintiff an equitable title, and that the rights of an innocent third person intervened to prevent the plaintiff's ratification. This might have been the result if Martin had secretly used the plaintiff's money and had bought the automobile as an individual.

  5. Citizens S. Nat. Bank v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y

    347 F.2d 18 (5th Cir. 1965)   Cited 9 times

    See also Hardeman v. Ellis, 1926, 162 Ga. 664, 135 S.E. 195; Board of Education of Glynn County v. Day, 1907, 128 Ga. 156, 57 S.E. 359; Trust Company of Georgia v. S. W. Cafeteria, 1958, 97 Ga. App. 268, 103 S.E.2d 63; Southern Federal Savings Loan Association v. Firemen's Benevolent Association, 1945, 72 Ga. App. 663, 34 S.E.2d 674. The two theories are not necessarily inconsistent: As long as the money was on deposit in Higgins's account at Citizens, Surety was entitled to seek restitution against either Higgins or Citizens, though recovery against one would have precluded recovery against the other.