Hader v. Eastman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hader v. Eastman

184 S.E.2d 478, 124 Ga. App. 548, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1017

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 5, 1971

Docket46522

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 184 S.E.2d 478 (Hader v. Eastman) 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

Hader v. Eastman, 184 S.E.2d 478, 124 Ga. App. 548, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1017 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff brought this suit for damages against the defendant in his capacity as the administrator of a decedent’s estate. Defendant in writing simultaneously acknowledged service of the complaint and waived the twelve months exemption from suit afforded an administrator by Code § 113-1526. The defendant in his answer attempted to revoke the waiver. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of revocation of the waiver and certified the denial for direct appeal. Held:

*549 Submitted September 8, 1971 Decided October 5, 1971. Perry, Walters, Langstaff, Lippitt & Campbell, Robert B. Langstaff, for appellant. Burt, Burt & Rentz, Van Cheney, for appellees.

The question is whether the waiver of the right not to be sued for twelve months can be revoked. It is settled that exemption from suit afforded an administrator may be waived. Emmett & Co. v. Dekle, 132 Ga. 593 (64 SE 682); Leath v. Hardman, 43 Ga. App. 270 (158 SE 453). It appears that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally waived his right to be exempt from suit for the statutory period. In Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. v. McRoberts, 50 Ga. App. 732 (179 SE 256), a case concerning the waiver of proof of loss as stipulated in an insurance policy, this court held that once a waiver has been made with knowledge of the facts and in the absence of fraud, it cannot be withdrawn. See 92 CJS 1041, 1069, Waiver. We see no reason why this rule should not apply to the waiver in this instance. There is no issue raised here as to fraud or that defendant did not have knowledge of the facts. The contention that the defendant received no consideration for the waiver is without merit as consideration is not an essential of waiver. Gray Lumber Co. v. Harris, 8 Ga. App. 70 (68 SE 749).

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Deen, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff brought this suit for damages against the defendant in his capacity as the administrator of a decedent’s estate. Defendant in writing simultaneously acknowledged service of the complaint and waived the twelve months exemption from suit afforded an administrator by Code § 113-1526. The defendant in his answer attempted to revoke the waiver. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of revocation of the waiver and certified the denial for direct appeal. Held:

*549 Submitted September 8, 1971 Decided October 5, 1971. Perry, Walters, Langstaff, Lippitt & Campbell, Robert B. Langstaff, for appellant. Burt, Burt & Rentz, Van Cheney, for appellees.

The question is whether the waiver of the right not to be sued for twelve months can be revoked. It is settled that exemption from suit afforded an administrator may be waived. Emmett & Co. v. Dekle, 132 Ga. 593 (64 SE 682); Leath v. Hardman, 43 Ga. App. 270 (158 SE 453). It appears that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally waived his right to be exempt from suit for the statutory period. In Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. v. McRoberts, 50 Ga. App. 732 (179 SE 256), a case concerning the waiver of proof of loss as stipulated in an insurance policy, this court held that once a waiver has been made with knowledge of the facts and in the absence of fraud, it cannot be withdrawn. See 92 CJS 1041, 1069, Waiver. We see no reason why this rule should not apply to the waiver in this instance. There is no issue raised here as to fraud or that defendant did not have knowledge of the facts. The contention that the defendant received no consideration for the waiver is without merit as consideration is not an essential of waiver. Gray Lumber Co. v. Harris, 8 Ga. App. 70 (68 SE 749).

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Deen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 S.E.2d 478, 124 Ga. App. 548, 1971 Ga. App. LEXIS 1017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hader-v-eastman-gactapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack