Bryant v. Clark Glass &Amp; Mirror Company Et Al., 109 Ga. App. 606, 136 S.E.2d 915 (1964)
Linked as:
Text
Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, James H. Moore, Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, Harold C. McKenzie, Jr., Carpenter & Karp, A. Tate Conyers, contra.Grace W. Thomas, for plaintiff in error.
A petition fails to state a cause of action for declaratory judgment when it shows that any rights the plaintiff has have already accrued, and does not show that the plaintiff is in danger of taking some future undirected action which if taken without judicial direction might reasonably jeopardize his rights.
The plaintiff named as defendants in this petition J. O. Clark, Clark Glass & Mirror Co., Inc. (hereinafter called Glass) and J. C. Distributors, Inc. (hereinafter called Distributors), two corporations allegedly owned by Clark; Fred Allen, an officer of the corporations; and Home Life Insurance Company, allegedly medical benefits insurer of Glass employees; and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, allegedly the workmen's compensation insurer of Glass. The plaintiff alleges that while he was employed by one of the Clark corporations he received an injury; that injury resulted in total and permanent disability, but this did not become apparent until more than a year after he was injured; that the defendants Clark, Allen, Glass, and Distributors concealed from him that he was entitled to workmen's compensation benefits and told him that he was then employed by Distributors and was not entitled to workmen's compensation, and fraudulently recovered for petitioner from Home Life Insurance Company, insurer of Glass employees, some weekly medical insurance benefits, representing to the insurer that the plaintiff's injury was not covered by workmen's compensation. The plaintiff later received another injury in his employment, which aggravated his former injury, and obtained a workmen's compensation award against Distributors on account of the second injury. Bryant v. J. C. Distributors,
The gravamen of this petition seems to be that by false representations the defendants Clark, Allen, Glass, and Distributors have prevented the defendant from enforcing his right to workmen's compensation arising from his first injury, and from enforcing his workmen's compensation award arising from his second injury. Aside from the question whether the plaintiff could succeed in pleading and proving some claim for benefits or cause of action for damages based on these complaints, his present petition does not show a right to the declaratory relief it seeks and the facts pleaded do not contain the elements of any cause of action for damages.
The petition shows that whatever rights the plaintiff has have already accrued. State Hwy. Dept. v. Georgia, F. &c. R. Co.,
The Declaratory Judgments Act, Code Ann. 110-1101 et seq., makes no provision for a judgment which is merely advisory. Shippen v. Folsom,
The trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrers and dismissing the petition.
Judgment affirmed. Nichols, P. J., and Russell, J., concur.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- Supreme Court of Georgia - HENDERSON v. ALVERSON et al., 217 Ga. 541, 123 S.E.2.d 721 (1961)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - PINKARD et al. v. MENDEL et al., Trustees., 216 Ga. 487, 117 S.E.2.d 336 (1960)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. GEORGIA SOUTHERN & FLORIDA RAILWAY COMPANY., 216 Ga. 547, 117 S.E.2.d 897 (1960)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - BREWTON et al. v. McLEOD, Executor, et al., 216 Ga. 686, 119 S.E.2.d 105 (1961)
- Supreme Court of Georgia - GEORGIA SOUTHERN & FLORIDA RAILWAY COMPANY v. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT., 216 Ga. 812, 120 S.E.2.d 122 (1961)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
