Carter v. R. H. Macy Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carter v. R. H. Macy Co.

248 S.E.2d 699, 147 Ga. App. 326, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2675

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 28, 1978

Docket56312

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 S.E.2d 699 (Carter v. R. H. Macy Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carter v. R. H. Macy Co., 248 S.E.2d 699, 147 Ga. App. 326, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2675 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Thomas H. Carter brings this pro se appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of his suit against appellee for invasion of privacy. Held:

An examination of the record shows that this suit was probably misnamed because it appears to be a suit for injury to reputation. Under Code Ann. § 3-1004 actions for injuries done to the person must be brought within two years after the right of action accrues, except for injuries [327]*327to the reputation, which shall be brought within one year. As the statute of limitation began running in 1968, the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss. The affirmative defense of statute of limitation may be pleaded by amendment. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Gill, 141 Ga. App. 324 (233 SE2d 278) (1977).

Argued September 11, 1978 Decided September 28, 1978 Thomas H. Carter, pro se. Schwall & Heuett, Robert J. Kaufman, Emory A. Schwall, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Banke, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deen, Presiding Judge.

Thomas H. Carter brings this pro se appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of his suit against appellee for invasion of privacy. Held:

An examination of the record shows that this suit was probably misnamed because it appears to be a suit for injury to reputation. Under Code Ann. § 3-1004 actions for injuries done to the person must be brought within two years after the right of action accrues, except for injuries [327]*327to the reputation, which shall be brought within one year. As the statute of limitation began running in 1968, the trial court did not err in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss. The affirmative defense of statute of limitation may be pleaded by amendment. Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Gill, 141 Ga. App. 324 (233 SE2d 278) (1977).

Argued September 11, 1978 Decided September 28, 1978 Thomas H. Carter, pro se. Schwall & Heuett, Robert J. Kaufman, Emory A. Schwall, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Banke, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.E.2d 699, 147 Ga. App. 326, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-r-h-macy-co-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack