Court Opinion

ID: 9846096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:34:34.128153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:33.297220
License: Public Domain

Deen, Judge, dissenting.
Leaving out the conclusions of the interested parties Floyd and Hodges the following appears: the parties were joint owners of certain horses; they agreed to trade interests in such manner that Floyd would be sole owner of one horse; as part of the agreement this horse would remain with Hodges (who had permission to ride it in return for feeding it) until Hodges left, then to be delivered to Floyd. Pursuant to this agreement Floyd took his truck over to Hodges’ place; Hodges borrowed a neighbor’s trailer and put the horse in it and hitched it up; Hodges and Floyd set out with the *867horse with Hodges driving Floyd’s car; there was a collision; Hodges remained at the place of impact and Floyd took the horse and truck on to the stable. At the time of the initial agreement it was known that Hodges was leaving the State and it was obviously necessary for the joint owners to make a disposition of the property mutually agreeable to them.
“Broadly, there is a joint enterprise or adventure when two or more combine their property or labor, or both, in a joint undertaking for profit, with rights of mutual control, provided the arrangement does not establish a partnership. . . There must be not only a joint interest in the objects and purposes of the undertaking, but also a right, express or implied of each member to the joint venture to direct and control the conduct of the other.” Security Development &c. Co. v. Williamson, 112 Ga. App. 524 (145 SE2d 581). Although this is a contract case, the joint enterprise theory of agency is frequently applied where the “profit” is not pecuniary, and where the joint control arises not from agreement but from the mere fact that both parties assumed to act in the premises. Here Floyd initiated the project of returning Ms horse to Ms premises with Ms automobile (Hodges driving) in his presence and he actually carried the trip to its conclusion. What constitutes a joint enterprise is usually a jury question, and if it is applicable there is a mutual agency between the parties. Bowman v. Fuller, 84 Ga. App. 421 (66 SE2d 249). I think there is a jury question as to joint liability. This is as consistent with the objective facts as the testimony of the parties that Hodges was merely “going along” with Floyd to be sure that Floyd fulfilled his contract. I think the language in McCurry v. Bailey, 224 Ga. 318 (162 SE2d 9) is apposite: “Does this contradiction yield to determination as a matter of law, or rather does it call for a jury verdict of men who are acquainted with the facts of life? We unhesitatingly hold that such a conflict is beyond the reach of mere judicial decision and can be resolved only in the American way—by the verdict of 12 jurors. The only human resolution of such conflicts can, under our jurisprudence, be made by a jury who alone can impeach, who alone can judge credibility, and who alone can decide issues of fact.”
*868'  As to the disappearance of the “presumption” in this case, I also hesitate to adopt categorically all that is said on the subject in the majority opinion. The Supreme Court reversed us in a similar holding (relating to the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption against suicide) by saying: “The only place the presumption vanishes is in the jury room, and the time it vanishes is when the juiy, in consideration of all facts and circumstances, determines that the preponderance of evidence is against” it. Templeton v. Kennesaw Life Ins. Co., 216 Ga. 770 (119 SE2d 649). (Emphasis supplied).
I think the judgment should be affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Judge Evans concurs in this dissent.