Court Opinion

ID: 9569012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:09:42.22451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:08.989202
License: Public Domain

Shulman, Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority that the award cited as its basis an erroneous legal theory, I do not believe that this merits a reversal. The award affirmatively shows that the erroneous legal theory did not preclude the consideration of evidence which, if the same had been considered, would have authorized a contrary result. Compare -with. Fidelity &c. Co. of N.Y. v. Hodges, 108 Ga. App. 474 (1) (133 SE2d 406); and Patterson v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 110 Ga. App. 23 (137 SE2d 549).
Rather, in the findings of fact, the issue of place of contract was expressly considered. The specific finding that the place of execution occurred in Georgia was supported by the evidence and is consistent with the legal conclusion that jurisdiction existed. By affirming the award, we are not adopting or approving an erroneous legal theory. "[T]he judgment will be affirmed if correct, regardless of the fact that it may be predicated upon an erroneous reason.” Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Loftis, 103 Ga. App. 749 (3) (120 SE2d 655).
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Deen joins in this dissent.