CARLEY, Judge.
Plaintiff-appellee Dickson Inc. brought suit in two counts against appellant-defendant Dorsey Inc. on open account and against Dorsey and the accommodation parties on a promissory note. Dorsey Inc. and the other defendants answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint. Appellants also filed a third-party complaint against James Archer, Paul Dorsey and the Oconee State Bank, alleging that they "unlawfully conspired to deprive [Dorsey Inc.] of its business assets, resulting in the issuance of an immediate writ of possession against [Dorsey Inc.]" which in turn "resulted in the complete and total inability of [Dorsey Inc.] to function in any capacity until dissolution of said writ, rendering [Dorsey Inc.] incapable of performing its obligations and resulting in a great loss of assets to [Dorsey Inc.] and a great additional liability to the other third party plaintiffs..." On these allegations, Dorsey Inc. and the other appellants sought the joint and several liability of the third-party defendants "for any and all damages that may arise as the result of [Dorsey Inc.'s] inability to conduct business, specifically including, although not by way of limitation, any liability which may be found in favor of [Dickson Inc.] and against [Dorsey and the other appellants]."
The third-party defendants moved to dismiss the third-party complaint. This motion was granted. The case proceeded to trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment against Dorsey Inc. and the other appellants. They appeal, enumerating as error only the dismissal of their third-party complaint.
1. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. Cf. Von Waldner v. Baldwin/Cheshire, Inc., 133 Ga. App. 23 ( 209 S.E.2d 715) (1974).
2. It was not error to dismiss the third-party conspiracy action as it did not constitute an attempt to render the third-party defendants secondarily liable for the primary claims against Dorsey Inc. Stein v. Burgamy, 150 Ga. App. 860 (2) ( 258 S.E.2d 684) (1979). It sought the direct liability of the third-party defendants to Dorsey Inc. on its claim of conspiracy to destroy its business. "[Appellants'] recovery against [the third-party defendants for conspiracy] in no wise depends on [Dickson Inc.'s] recovery against [appellants on open account and on the note.]... [I]f [appellants] could successfully defend against the main action ... it would be possible for [them] to recover from [the third-party defendants] for [conspiracy.] While that result may be proper in a counterclaim context, it is impermissible in third-party practice." Wolski v. Hayes, 144 Ga. App. 180, 182 ( 240 S.E.2d 720) (1977). "Third-party pleading does not allow a defendant to implead a third-party defendant to recover on a claim on which the third-party defendant is alleged to be directly liable to the defendant. The defendant may only implead one `who is or may be liable to him for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against him.' [Cits.]" Southern R. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. A., 228 Ga. 23, 31 ( 183 S.E.2d 912) (1971). "`[Code Ann. § 81A-114] is not a device for bringing into an action any controversy which may happen to have some relationship with it.'" Mathews v. McConnell, 124 Ga. App. 519, 521 ( 184 S.E.2d 491) (1971).
Judgment affirmed. Deen, C. J., and Shulman, J., concur.
CARLEY, Judge.
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 6, 1979 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 26, 1980.