Holbrook v. Halpern Enterprises, Inc.

234 S.E.2d 187, 141 Ga. App. 648, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2034
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedMarch 18, 1977
Docket53622
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 234 S.E.2d 187 (Holbrook v. Halpern Enterprises, 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
Holbrook v. Halpern Enterprises, Inc., 234 S.E.2d 187, 141 Ga. App. 648, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2034 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

Quillian, Presiding Judge.

Appellee filed suit for rent due under a contract against the appellant. After answering, the appellant, filed a motion for summary judgment which was overruled. The case came on for trial at which the appellant did not appear. The trial judge struck the appellant’s answer and entered judgment for appellee.

The appellant filed a motion for new trial and asserted that he did not receive notice. Appellant’s attorney recited by affidavit that during the pendency of the suit he had moved offices; that he had given the U. S. Postal Service notice of the change of address; that he did not receive notice of the date of trial although notice was mailed by the clerk’s office. The trial judge denied the motion and appeal followed. Held:

From the affidavit offered by appellant, notice was mailed by the clerk and nothing appears to show that the *649 clerk’s office was informed as to the new address.

Submitted March 8, 1977 Decided March 18, 1977. Robert D. Brooks, for appellant. Jack N. Halpern, for appellee.

Even though the party himself may not have actual notice, if the requirements for giving notice are complied with, the provisions of CPA § 40 (c) (Code Ann. § 81A-140 (c); Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 653; 1967, pp. 226, 245; 1968, pp. 1104, 1108; 1976, p. 1677) are satisfied. Tollman Pools of Ga. v. Napier, 137 Ga. App. 500, 502 (1) (224 SE2d 426) and cits. The record here does not demand a finding contrary to that held by the trial judge. See Bragg v. Bragg, 225 Ga. 494, 496 (170 SE2d 29).

Judgment affirmed.

Smith and Shulman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bocker v. Crisp
722 S.E.2d 186 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2012)
Automated Medical Services, Inc. v. Holland
303 S.E.2d 127 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1983)
Stewart v. Williams
296 S.E.2d 416 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
Havlik v. Tuftcraft, Inc.
290 S.E.2d 524 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1982)
STERLING MOTOR FREIGHT COMPANY, INC. v. Wendt
275 S.E.2d 101 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1980)
Spyropoulos v. John Linard Estate
251 S.E.2d 327 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Gorlin v. First National Bank
250 S.E.2d 798 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1978)
Schwartz v. C & S MORTGAGE COMPANY
236 S.E.2d 856 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 S.E.2d 187, 141 Ga. App. 648, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holbrook-v-halpern-enterprises-inc-gactapp-1977.