Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Withrow Travel Service, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Withrow Travel Service, Inc.

258 S.E.2d 59, 150 Ga. App. 435, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2340

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 22, 1979

Docket57732

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 258 S.E.2d 59 (Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Withrow Travel Service, 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

Hilton Hotels Corp. v. Withrow Travel Service, Inc., 258 S.E.2d 59, 150 Ga. App. 435, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2340 (Ga. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

In this contract action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the basis of the defendant’s failure to respond under oath to plaintiffs requests for admissions. The defendant’s responses to the requests were instead simply signed by its attorney. Appeal is from the grant of summary judgment. Held:

Under the Civil Practice Act, requests for admission require "a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. § 81A-136 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 648, as amended through Ga. L. 1972, pp. 510, 528). Prior to amendment in 1972, the responses were required to be made under oath; however, the 1972 amendment deleted this requirement. Although in Burge v. High, 147 Ga. App. 267 (248 SE2d 546) (1978) this court continued to hold that an oath was required, that case was decided without reference to the 1972 amendment, evidently due to oversight. Accordingly, Burge is hereby overruled, and the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in this case is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, C. J., Quillian, P. J., McMurray, P. J., Smith, Birdsong, Underwood and, Carley, JJ., concur. Shulman, J., not participating. Alston, Miller & Gaines, JayD. Bennett, for appellee.

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

Banke, Judge.

In this contract action, the trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the basis of the defendant’s failure to respond under oath to plaintiffs requests for admissions. The defendant’s responses to the requests were instead simply signed by its attorney. Appeal is from the grant of summary judgment. Held:

Under the Civil Practice Act, requests for admission require "a written answer or objection addressed to the matter, signed by the party or by his attorney . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) Code Ann. § 81A-136 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 648, as amended through Ga. L. 1972, pp. 510, 528). Prior to amendment in 1972, the responses were required to be made under oath; however, the 1972 amendment deleted this requirement. Although in Burge v. High, 147 Ga. App. 267 (248 SE2d 546) (1978) this court continued to hold that an oath was required, that case was decided without reference to the 1972 amendment, evidently due to oversight. Accordingly, Burge is hereby overruled, and the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff in this case is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, C. J., Quillian, P. J., McMurray, P. J., Smith, Birdsong, Underwood and, Carley, JJ., concur. Shulman, J., not participating. Alston, Miller & Gaines, JayD. Bennett, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 S.E.2d 59, 150 Ga. App. 435, 1979 Ga. App. LEXIS 2340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilton-hotels-corp-v-withrow-travel-service-inc-gactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack