From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hunter Turnkey, Inc. v. Pilot Property Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 23, 1993
436 S.E.2d 84 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

A93A1097.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1993.

Agent liability. Fulton State Court. Before Judge Carnes.

Smith, Welch Studdard, Benjamin W. Studdard III, for appellant.

Trauner, Cohen Thomas, Russell S. Thomas, for appellee.


Canterbury Trails, Ltd. owned the Kensington Apartments. Pilot Property Company acted as Canterbury's agent in managing the apartment complex. Hunter Turnkey, Inc., pursuant to oral agreements with Pilot, provided various maintenance services at the complex. Hunter was not paid for the services and filed a lawsuit against Pilot seeking payment. Pilot denied acting in its individual capacity, contending that it dealt with Hunter solely in its capacity as Canterbury's agent. The trial judge, sitting without a jury, entered judgment in favor of Pilot. Hunter appeals, arguing that the court's judgment that Pilot is not personally liable is contrary to the evidence.

"`In order to avoid personal liability an agent is under a duty to disclose the fact of his agency and the identity of his principal, and one who deals with an agent who fails to disclose his principal may at his election recover from either the agent or the principal. The disclosure of an agency is not complete for the purpose of relieving the agent from personal liability unless it embraces the name of the principal.' [Cits.]" Collins v. Brayson Supply Co., 157 Ga. App. 438 ( 278 S.E.2d 87) (1981); see also Wojcik v. Lewis, 204 Ga. App. 301, 304 (2) ( 419 S.E.2d 135) (1992). Here, the uncontradicted evidence shows that Pilot never disclosed to Hunter the fact of its agency or the identity of Canterbury as its principal. There is some evidence from which the court could have found that Hunter, despite the lack of disclosure by Pilot, knew from other circumstances that Pilot merely managed the property and did not own it. Nonetheless, there is absolutely no evidence that Pilot ever disclosed to Hunter the name of Canterbury as the property owner and principal. Because Pilot did not meet its duty of disclosing the name of Canterbury as its principal, Pilot is not relieved from personal liability for the services provided by Hunter. Allen v. Sun Concrete Co., 185 Ga. App. 662, 663 ( 365 S.E.2d 506) (1988). The trial court's judgment that Pilot is not personally liable is not supported by any evidence and therefore must be reversed. See generally Decatur Co. v. Bowen, 203 Ga. App. 84, 87-88 (1, 2) ( 416 S.E.2d 304) (1992).

Judgment reversed. McMurray, P. J., and Blackburn, J., concur.

DECIDED SEPTEMBER 23, 1993.


Summaries of

Hunter Turnkey, Inc. v. Pilot Property Company

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Sep 23, 1993
436 S.E.2d 84 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

Hunter Turnkey, Inc. v. Pilot Property Company

Case Details

Full title:HUNTER TURNKEY, INC. v. PILOT PROPERTY COMPANY

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Sep 23, 1993

Citations

436 S.E.2d 84 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
436 S.E.2d 84

Citing Cases

Yim v. J's Fashion Accessories, Inc.

Redi-Floors, Inc. v. Sonenberg Co., 254 Ga. App. 615, 616 (1) ( 563 SE2d 505) (2002).Hunter Turnkey, Inc. v.…

Winburn v. McGuire Investment Group

2. There is a further legal obstacle to the argument made by defendants. Since "tenant" is defined in the…