Court Opinion

ID: 3400770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 19:12:14.611878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:11.986694
License: Public Domain

I am agreeing to the opinion; but there is an additional reason why it seems to me the judgment is correct, and that is that the statute referred to did not contemplate a situation such as is shown by this record. Here we have not only two distinct corporations, but one of them is in one county, one in another. One's line of business is entirely different from the other's. The work required of an employee of the one is not of the same character as that of the other. The two are not one business. It is not a case where the same employees work sometimes for one company, and at other times for the other company. It is not an instance where two or more corporations are engaged in doing things which in their nature are related, nor where for convenience different elements of the same business are operated under different charters; nor is this a case of subterfuge. The two businesses are wholly unrelated. It was not intended that the law should be applied to a state of facts such as that here shown. Compare Brooks v. Brooks, 185 Ga. 549,554 (195 S.E. 869). Mr. Chief Justice Reid concurs in these views.