Gilham v. STAMM & COMPANY, INC.

162 S.E.2d 248, 117 Ga. App. 846, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1260
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 6, 1968
Docket43526
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 162 S.E.2d 248 (Gilham v. STAMM & COMPANY, INC.) 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
Gilham v. STAMM & COMPANY, INC., 162 S.E.2d 248, 117 Ga. App. 846, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1260 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

Eberhardt, Judge.

A default judgment rendered in a suit on account is subject to a motion to set aside under the Civil Practice Act § 60 (d) (Code Ann. § 81A-160 (d)) at the in *847 stance of an individual defendant sued jointly with a corporate defendant where the sworn itemized statement of the account attached to the complaint affirmatively shows that the items and services were sold and delivered to the corporate defendant only and that no claim in fact exists against the individual defendant from whom recovery is sought for the indebtedness of the corporation — “a clear case of non-liability.” Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga. App. 624, 626 (122 SE2d 463). The exhibits showing all items to have been charged to the corporate defendant must control over the general allegation in the petition that the “defendants are indebted to plaintiff” in a stated amount. Saldivia v. Saldivia, 218 Ga. 98 (126 SE2d 615); Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) (86 SE2d 632). Since this is a default judgment there is no presumption that there was proof before the court that would have authorized a finding of liability on the account as to Gilham, the individual. Bayne v. Sun Finance Co. No. 1, 114 Ga. App. 27 (5) (150 SE2d 311). Consequently, as to him the judgment must be set aside. Dell v. Kugel, 99 Ga. App. 551 (2) (109 SE2d 532).

Argued March 4, 1968 Decided June 6, 1968. Johnston & McCarter, John M. McCarter, for appellant. Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Morris Macey, David Butler, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

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

Related

Wilson Tomala v. Rick Harris
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2025
First Baptist Church v. King
430 S.E.2d 635 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1993)
S. J. Kilpatrick Construction Co. v. Sizemore
410 S.E.2d 386 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
Fudge v. Weissinger
411 S.E.2d 62 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
OLDEN CAMERA & LENS COMPANY, INC. v. White
347 S.E.2d 696 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Power v. Mobley
316 S.E.2d 580 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1984)
Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing Co. v. Huff
234 S.E.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Martin v. Pierce
232 S.E.2d 170 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Townsend
220 S.E.2d 14 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Perkins v. P. L. W., Inc.
191 S.E.2d 482 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1972)
Escambia Chemical Corp. v. Rocker
184 S.E.2d 31 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1971)
Grey v. Roboscope International, Ltd., of Georgia, Inc.
178 S.E.2d 334 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Robinson v. Reward Ceramic Color Manufacturing, Inc.
170 S.E.2d 724 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
162 S.E.2d 248, 117 Ga. App. 846, 1968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilham-v-stamm-company-inc-gactapp-1968.