Court Opinion

ID: 9865605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:05:36.435516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:34.896267
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
The Association now makes the contention that the record does not show that it knew all of the facts connected with Dodd’s misappropriations at the time it instituted the action against him. Even if this is true, a different judgment would not be demanded, because the burden of proving that the election of the remedy was made in ignorance of the facts concerning the right to adopt another remedy was on the Association (Land v. Hall, 46 Ga. App. 404 (3), 407, 167 S. E. 711), and the evidence does not show ignorance of such facts when the action was brought against Dodd. The contention that the filing of the equitable petition against Dodd was merely a collateral proceeding and not an inconsistent remedy is without merit, for the reason that it was not merely an *669attempt to have a receiver appointed but was also an action to recover a money judgment against Dodd. We find nothing in Belle Isle v. Moore, 190 Ga. 881 (10 S. E. 2d, 923), in conflict with what is ruled in this case. Rehearing denied.