Court Opinion

ID: 9573707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:57:53.829454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:28.993126
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
On motion for rehearing, appellee B & A Equipment Company contends that Cumberland &c. Ltd. v. Builders Steel Supply, 169 Ga. App. 945 (315 SE2d 484) is controlling precedent for this case. However, Cumberland is physical precedent only, according to Court of¡ Appeals Rule 35 (b). In point of fact, the special concurrence in Cum-\ berland raised the same concern about the language quoted from Levy v. G. E. C. Corp., 117 Ga. App. 673, 677 (161 SE2d 339), which we clarify in our opinion in this case. I
In the Cumberland case, the entire panel agreed that the evi-l dence provided a sufficient basis upon which the jury could conclude that the last services and materials pursuant to the contract were fur-I nished within three months of lien filing. The full evidence is not rel cited in Cumberland, and it cannot be said that evidence was identil cal to the evidence in this case. In this case the evidence demands a finding that the last services and materials were in fact furnished) pursuant to the contract not later than February 27, 1988; on thai basis appellant was entitled to directed verdict under the law and thll matter should not have been submitted to a jury. OCGA § 9-11-50.11
Moreover, because the evidence demands a finding that the coni *663tract was in fact completed and performed no later than February 27, 1981, and because it is self-evident that a contractor cannot go back indefinitely and “check” to see if it had completed its work, or do some “repair” or other activity sua sponte, and thus extend the time for lien filing, we did not say much about the substantial foreign and scholarly legal authority on the subject, but there are powerful policy reasons for our conclusion upon this evidence. The position of appel-lee completely disembowels the lien laws; suffice it to say that the sanctity of the lien laws, not the supposed sanctity of an unauthorized jury verdict, demands the result obtained upon the evidence in this case on appeal.
Decided April 17, 1991
Rehearing denied May 7, 1991
Thompson & McClure, Douglas R. Thompson, John L. Adair, for appellant.
Stewart, Melvin & House, William H. Blalock, Jr., for appellee.

Motion for rehearing denied.