Cooper v. Mercantile National Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cooper v. Mercantile National Bank

248 S.E.2d 201, 147 Ga. App. 136, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2814

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 7, 1978

Docket56112

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 S.E.2d 201 (Cooper v. Mercantile National Bank) 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

Cooper v. Mercantile National Bank, 248 S.E.2d 201, 147 Ga. App. 136, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2814 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

Cooper sued Mercantile National Bank, alleging misrepresentation by a bank officer in connection with a [137]*137promissory note which Cooper executed. In a previous case, the bank sued Cooper on the note, won a recovery, and prevailed on appeal. Cooper v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 137 Ga. App. 605 (224 SE2d 442) (1976). In the instant action, the trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the action is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Cooper contests that conclusion, but we affirm.

Submitted June 28, 1978 Decided September 7, 1978. Fierer & Devine, Foy R. Devine, for appellant. Nall & Miller, G. William Thackston, Jr., Thomas J. Kassin, for appellee.

Code § 110-501 states: "A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.” The facts underlying this case were amply set forth in the previous opinion. Cooper, supra. Concisely stated, an examination of the pleadings here shows that every issue raised either was raised, or could have been raised, in the previous litigation. See, e.g., Rothstein v. First Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. App. 526 (233 SE2d 802) (1977). Contrary to Cooper’s assertions, the law has not changed since the earlier judgment. The case which allegedly changed the law, Thompson v. First Nat. Bank &c. Co., 142 Ga. App. 174 (235 SE2d 582) (1977), does not conflict with Cooper, supra, and did not announce a new rule of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

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

Smith, Judge.

Cooper sued Mercantile National Bank, alleging misrepresentation by a bank officer in connection with a [137]*137promissory note which Cooper executed. In a previous case, the bank sued Cooper on the note, won a recovery, and prevailed on appeal. Cooper v. Mercantile Nat. Bank, 137 Ga. App. 605 (224 SE2d 442) (1976). In the instant action, the trial court granted the bank’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the action is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Cooper contests that conclusion, but we affirm.

Submitted June 28, 1978 Decided September 7, 1978. Fierer & Devine, Foy R. Devine, for appellant. Nall & Miller, G. William Thackston, Jr., Thomas J. Kassin, for appellee.

Code § 110-501 states: "A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive between the same parties and their privies as to all matters put in issue, or which under the rules of law might have been put in issue in the cause wherein the judgment was rendered, until such judgment shall be reversed or set aside.” The facts underlying this case were amply set forth in the previous opinion. Cooper, supra. Concisely stated, an examination of the pleadings here shows that every issue raised either was raised, or could have been raised, in the previous litigation. See, e.g., Rothstein v. First Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. App. 526 (233 SE2d 802) (1977). Contrary to Cooper’s assertions, the law has not changed since the earlier judgment. The case which allegedly changed the law, Thompson v. First Nat. Bank &c. Co., 142 Ga. App. 174 (235 SE2d 582) (1977), does not conflict with Cooper, supra, and did not announce a new rule of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Deen, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.E.2d 201, 147 Ga. App. 136, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-v-mercantile-national-bank-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack