Legal Opinion

Ronfra Development Corp. v. Pennington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 19, 1974No. 49101Published

1Opinion of the Court

Deen, Judge.

1. The contention that Ronfra is entitled to have sums spent for litigation, attorney fees and interest, in defending the owners against Georgia Pacific’s claims of lien paid for by the materialman J & J, or set off against what Ronfra owed J & J on account, is without merit. There can be no quantum meruit recovery under Code § 3-107. In addition to other equally good reasons, it should be pointed out that J & J was not a required defendant in the foreclosure suits, being a bankrupt (Code Ann. § 67-2002 (3)) and that as such bankrupt it had listed Georgia Pacific as a creditor in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Dan Austin Properties, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  2. Christian Women's Benevolent Ass'n v. Atlanta Trust Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  3. Crawford v. TheoCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
  4. Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Dan Austin Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1972
  5. Wender & Roberts, Inc. v. JonesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API