## Facts

- A contractor was constructing a concrete bridge over a stream on land owned by a third party under a construction contract.
- During performance, an officer of a corporation allegedly entered the site and used equipment to demolish portions of the partially completed bridge.
- The destroyed work included concrete footings and walls that could be treated as part of the realty.
- The contractor alleged it lacked legal possession of the land and occupied it only by the owner’s permission to perform the contract.
- The contractor alleged it incurred expense to rebuild and sought actual and punitive damages based on interference with its contractual and related property interests.
- Defendants filed general and special demurrers, arguing the petition was essentially trespass to realty and failed because the contractor neither owned nor possessed the land.
- The trial court overruled the demurrers; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a petition that could be read as alleging trespass to realty nonetheless states a viable tort claim for intentional interference with contractual/property rights sufficient to withstand a general demurrer.
2. Whether a contractor without title or legal possession of the land may sue for intentional destruction of work performed under its contract as interference with its contractual rights.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order overruling the general demurrer.
- Although the petition was inartfully drawn and could be construed as asserting injury to realty, it also alleged facts supporting a separate theory: interference with the contractor’s contractual and related property rights.
- Under liberal pleading rules, dismissal on general demurrer is improper if the petition states a cause of action under any viable theory.

## Legal Principles

- A petition survives a general demurrer if it states a cause of action under any legal theory supported by the alleged facts, even if the pleading is misleading or inartful.
- Contractual rights are protectable property rights; unlawful interference with the enjoyment of property is actionable in tort.
- Intentional destruction of work performed pursuant to a contract may support a tort claim for interference with contractual relations/property rights independent of an action for trespass to realty.

## Conclusion

The court held that, even if the contractor lacked title or legal possession of the land and the destroyed work had become part of the realty, the petition adequately alleged intentional interference with the contractor’s contractual/property interests and therefore could not be dismissed on general demurrer.


Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc. v. H.W. Ivey Constr. Co., 109 Ga. App. 876, 137 S.E.2d 528 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964)