Court Opinion

ID: 9849016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:32:58.00531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:57.252948
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Hall, Judge.
On motion for rehearing, the plaintiff contends that this court has misconstrued his cause of action; that he is not seeking equitable relief; and that therefore his peti*177tion is an action at law upon a statutory bond. However, he contends that the right to bring this action is based upon an equitable assignment of the rights of the laborers to recover under the payment bond.
If the plaintiff is in fact the holder of an equitable assignment of these rights, a recovery in his name will depend upon equitable principles and the exercise of equitable jurisdiction. 4 Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, pp. 800-801, §§ 1277,1278. Accord, Brown v. Southern Ry. Co., 140 Ga. 539 (79 SE 152); Beasley v. Anderson, 167 Ga. 470 (146 SE 22). To enforce these rights at law, the plaintiff must sue in the names of his assignors (laborers) for his own use. Franklin v. Mobley, 73 Ga. App. 245, 249 (36 SE2d 173); Leverett, Hall Christopher, Georgia Procedure and Practice, pp. 80-81, § 4-30. It is true that the holder of the equitable title to a chose in action may amend by adding as plaintiff in his suit the name of the person who holds the legal title, suing for his own use. However, there has been no such amendment in this case prior to the sustaining of the defendant’s general demurrer.
Plaintiff strenuously insists that the holders of equitable rights may enforce the same in a court of law citing Glover v. Stamps, 73 Ga. 209 (54 AR 170) and Dobbs v. Perlman, 59 Ga. App. 770 (2 SE2d 109). These cases do not stand for any such general rule. They are examples of actions based on equitable principles that are specifically authorized at law. The Glover case was an action in ejectment and held that a “perfect equity” is the equivalent of legal title. This is a rather narrow and limited exception to the general rule and according to one authority has resulted in some confusion. Powell on Actions For Land, pp. 139-140, § 138. The Dobbs case was an action in assumpsit for money had and received based upon the equitable principles of unjust enrichment. However, it is “an action at law because of its origin as a mode of action in the common-law courts.” Sheehan v. City Council of Augusta, 71 Ga. App. 233, 237 (30 SE2d 502).
The plaintiff’s contention, that an action to enforce an equitable right may be asserted at law provided the petition does not pray for affirmative equitable relief, is unsound. If this *178were true, any party seeking the enforcement of an equitable right could convert his case into a law case simply by electing to pray for relief that can be granted in legal actions.

Motion for rehearing denied.

Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.