Horn v. TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Horn v. TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC.

190 S.E.2d 158, 126 Ga. App. 169, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1087

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 6, 1972

Docket46986, 46987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 190 S.E.2d 158 (Horn v. TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, 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

Horn v. TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC., 190 S.E.2d 158, 126 Ga. App. 169, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1087 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Presiding Judge.

Defendant in two negligence actions appeals from the denial of his motions for summary judgment on res judicata grounds. The record shows that the two plaintiffs in the separate actions on appeal here were originally among four plaintiffs in an. earlier filed action based on the same occurrence. In this action,-defendant made motions to dismiss, to strike certain claims and for a more definite statement as to others. These motions affected only the two plaintiffs here. The trial court sustained the motions, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend within 15 days, and further providing that if they failed to amend, the complaint would stand dismissed as to them. The complaints were not amended nor was any other action taken with respect to this order. Plaintiffs subsequently filed these present suits.

The pleadings in the original suit show that it is a multi *170 party, multi-claim action. Therefore, the finality of any order or decision made in the case, is governed, by Code Ann. §81A-154 (b). This rule provides that in the absence of an express determination by the court that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment, no order or decision which adjudicates with respect to fewer than all the claims or all the parties is final. Such an order or decision is subject to revision at any time before final judgment on all claims and parties. See also Cook v. Peeples, 227 Ga. 473 (181 SE2d 375); Davis v. Roper, 119 Ga. App. 442 (167 SE2d 685).

Submitted March 2, 1972— Decided April 6, 1972— Rehearing denied April 28, 1972. Dunaway, Shelfer, Haas & Newberry, Hugh F. Newberry, L. Robert Lake, for appellant. A. Hugh Leatherwood, Robert J. James, for appellees.

The record here, which the clerk has certified as entire, discloses no judgment against the plaintiffs meeting the requirements of Rule 54 (b). The trial court did not err in denying the motions for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Quillian, JJ., concur.

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

Hall, Presiding Judge.

Defendant in two negligence actions appeals from the denial of his motions for summary judgment on res judicata grounds. The record shows that the two plaintiffs in the separate actions on appeal here were originally among four plaintiffs in an. earlier filed action based on the same occurrence. In this action,-defendant made motions to dismiss, to strike certain claims and for a more definite statement as to others. These motions affected only the two plaintiffs here. The trial court sustained the motions, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend within 15 days, and further providing that if they failed to amend, the complaint would stand dismissed as to them. The complaints were not amended nor was any other action taken with respect to this order. Plaintiffs subsequently filed these present suits.

The pleadings in the original suit show that it is a multi *170 party, multi-claim action. Therefore, the finality of any order or decision made in the case, is governed, by Code Ann. §81A-154 (b). This rule provides that in the absence of an express determination by the court that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment, no order or decision which adjudicates with respect to fewer than all the claims or all the parties is final. Such an order or decision is subject to revision at any time before final judgment on all claims and parties. See also Cook v. Peeples, 227 Ga. 473 (181 SE2d 375); Davis v. Roper, 119 Ga. App. 442 (167 SE2d 685).

Submitted March 2, 1972— Decided April 6, 1972— Rehearing denied April 28, 1972. Dunaway, Shelfer, Haas & Newberry, Hugh F. Newberry, L. Robert Lake, for appellant. A. Hugh Leatherwood, Robert J. James, for appellees.

The record here, which the clerk has certified as entire, discloses no judgment against the plaintiffs meeting the requirements of Rule 54 (b). The trial court did not err in denying the motions for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell and Quillian, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E.2d 158, 126 Ga. App. 169, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horn-v-terminal-transport-company-inc-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack