Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Johnson
Citations: 183 S.E.2d 50; 124 Ga. App. 68; 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 816Docket: 45853, 45855
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia; June 2, 1971; Georgia; State Appellate Court
The case involves an action for damages due to breach of contract between Mutual Federal Savings & Loan Association and Johnson et al. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reviewed the case after a second trial, where the jury awarded damages, interest, and attorney's fees to the plaintiffs. The defendant's appeal challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's verdict, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding the trial court's decision to set aside the award for attorney's fees. Key points include: 1. The main appeal questioned whether there was adequate evidence for the jury's decision. The court found ample evidence supporting the existence of an alleged parol agreement concerning the procedures for disbursing a construction loan for a church addition. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant did not adhere to these procedures, which led to unsatisfactory work and depletion of funds without their consent. 2. The jury's findings were supported by the evidence, and the trial judge's denial of the motion for a new trial was upheld. 3. The plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees was based on alleged bad faith by the defendant in fulfilling contractual obligations. However, the evidence only indicated a legitimate dispute over the contract's terms rather than any bad faith or ill will. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict regarding attorney's fees, as the criteria for establishing bad faith were not met. 4. The plaintiffs' motion for damages due to the appeal being deemed solely for delay was denied. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed on both the main appeal and the cross appeal.