Hathcock v. National Bank of Georgia

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hathcock v. National Bank of Georgia

248 S.E.2d 206, 147 Ga. App. 134, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2812

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 7, 1978

Docket56019

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 248 S.E.2d 206 (Hathcock v. National Bank of Georgia) 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

Hathcock v. National Bank of Georgia, 248 S.E.2d 206, 147 Ga. App. 134, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, Judge.

After a proper motion and hearing, the court granted summary judgment in favor of National Bank of Georgia in its suit against Hathcock on two promissory notes. Hatchcock appeals, contending material issues of fact remain, but we affirm.

"The petitioner presented, prima facie, by the pleadings and [its] affidavit, that [it] was entitled to judgment on the promissory note. The respondent at that stage of the proceeding failed to come forward with any evidence so as to create an issue of fact to be decided by a jury.” Meade v. Heimanson, 239 Ga. 177, 180-181 (236 SE2d 357) (1977). As we read the Meade case, once aprima facie showing has been made in favor of recovery on the *135 promissory note, the respondent must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id., p. 178. The bank’s affidavit here made out a prima facie case for recovery on the notes; Hatchcock’s responsive affidavit set forth not "specific facts,” but conclusory allegations. More was required.

Submitted June 6, 1978 Decided September 7, 1978. Joseph M. Todd, Monroe Ferguson, for appellant. Macey & Zusmann, Dennis M. Hall, for appellee.

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.

After a proper motion and hearing, the court granted summary judgment in favor of National Bank of Georgia in its suit against Hathcock on two promissory notes. Hatchcock appeals, contending material issues of fact remain, but we affirm.

"The petitioner presented, prima facie, by the pleadings and [its] affidavit, that [it] was entitled to judgment on the promissory note. The respondent at that stage of the proceeding failed to come forward with any evidence so as to create an issue of fact to be decided by a jury.” Meade v. Heimanson, 239 Ga. 177, 180-181 (236 SE2d 357) (1977). As we read the Meade case, once aprima facie showing has been made in favor of recovery on the *135 promissory note, the respondent must come forward with "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id., p. 178. The bank’s affidavit here made out a prima facie case for recovery on the notes; Hatchcock’s responsive affidavit set forth not "specific facts,” but conclusory allegations. More was required.

Submitted June 6, 1978 Decided September 7, 1978. Joseph M. Todd, Monroe Ferguson, for appellant. Macey & Zusmann, Dennis M. Hall, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.E.2d 206, 147 Ga. App. 134, 1978 Ga. App. LEXIS 2812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hathcock-v-national-bank-of-georgia-gactapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack