HG HASTINGS COMPANY v. Long & Patrick Nursery, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

HG HASTINGS COMPANY v. Long & Patrick Nursery, Inc.

303 S.E.2d 768, 166 Ga. App. 228, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2110

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1983

Docket65875

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 303 S.E.2d 768 (HG HASTINGS COMPANY v. Long & Patrick Nursery, 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

HG HASTINGS COMPANY v. Long & Patrick Nursery, Inc., 303 S.E.2d 768, 166 Ga. App. 228, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2110 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This is an action to recover an alleged open account indebtedness in the amount of $2,141 for plants sold to the defendant. In its answer, the defendant admitted receipt of the invoices attached to the complaint but denied being indebted in that amount. This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff. Held:

“The cardinal rule in the summary judgment procedure is that the court can neither resolve the facts nor reconcile the issues, but only look to ascertain if there is an issue of fact. [Cit.] The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact; and, if the trial court is presented with a choice of inferences to be drawn from the facts, all inferences of fact from the proofs proffered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Jonesboro Tool & Die Corp. v. Ga. Power Co., 158 Ga. App. 755, 758 (282 SE2d 211) (1981). In this case, the defendant submitted an affidavit showing that the merchandise was received in a damaged condition and was not of the quality ordered. Appellee’s arguments notwithstanding, we find this evidence sufficiently presents a fact issue concerning the amount of the debt, if any. Accord Hamlet v. Mr. Zippy, Inc., 163 Ga. App. 865 (294 SE2d 671) (1982).

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

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

Banke, Judge.

This is an action to recover an alleged open account indebtedness in the amount of $2,141 for plants sold to the defendant. In its answer, the defendant admitted receipt of the invoices attached to the complaint but denied being indebted in that amount. This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment for the plaintiff. Held:

“The cardinal rule in the summary judgment procedure is that the court can neither resolve the facts nor reconcile the issues, but only look to ascertain if there is an issue of fact. [Cit.] The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact; and, if the trial court is presented with a choice of inferences to be drawn from the facts, all inferences of fact from the proofs proffered at the hearing must be drawn against the movant and in favor of the party opposing the motion.” Jonesboro Tool & Die Corp. v. Ga. Power Co., 158 Ga. App. 755, 758 (282 SE2d 211) (1981). In this case, the defendant submitted an affidavit showing that the merchandise was received in a damaged condition and was not of the quality ordered. Appellee’s arguments notwithstanding, we find this evidence sufficiently presents a fact issue concerning the amount of the debt, if any. Accord Hamlet v. Mr. Zippy, Inc., 163 Ga. App. 865 (294 SE2d 671) (1982).

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Carley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.E.2d 768, 166 Ga. App. 228, 1983 Ga. App. LEXIS 2110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hg-hastings-company-v-long-patrick-nursery-inc-gactapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack