Moore v. Trust Company Bank

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moore v. Trust Company Bank

237 S.E.2d 471, 142 Ga. App. 877, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2159

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 14, 1977

Docket54095

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 237 S.E.2d 471 (Moore v. Trust Company Bank) 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

Moore v. Trust Company Bank, 237 S.E.2d 471, 142 Ga. App. 877, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2159 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs, depositors, sued the defendant bank for damages because of the claimed wrongful submission to a levy on plaintiffs’ account by the Internal Revenue Service for payment of federal income tax. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court granted the motion and in so doing considered matters outside the pleadings. Thus the grant must be treated as one for summary judgment. CPA § 12 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-112 (b)). The plaintiffs have appeared pro se in this court and enumerate two errors. Held:

1. Enumeration 1 is that the court erred in not dismissing the defendant’s motion because of "default.” The record fails to indicate that the claimed error ever occurred. Thus, there is nothing to review. The burden is on the appellant to show error affirmatively by the record. J. W. J. v. State of Ga., 140 Ga. App. 366 (231 SE2d 131).

2. The second claim of error is that plaintiffs were denied a trial by jury. This case was correctly decided on summary judgment. Plaintiffs, as a consequence, were not entitled to a jury trial. CPA § 56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, . JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs, depositors, sued the defendant bank for damages because of the claimed wrongful submission to a levy on plaintiffs’ account by the Internal Revenue Service for payment of federal income tax. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court granted the motion and in so doing considered matters outside the pleadings. Thus the grant must be treated as one for summary judgment. CPA § 12 (b) (Code Ann. § 81A-112 (b)). The plaintiffs have appeared pro se in this court and enumerate two errors. Held:

1. Enumeration 1 is that the court erred in not dismissing the defendant’s motion because of "default.” The record fails to indicate that the claimed error ever occurred. Thus, there is nothing to review. The burden is on the appellant to show error affirmatively by the record. J. W. J. v. State of Ga., 140 Ga. App. 366 (231 SE2d 131).

2. The second claim of error is that plaintiffs were denied a trial by jury. This case was correctly decided on summary judgment. Plaintiffs, as a consequence, were not entitled to a jury trial. CPA § 56 (Code Ann. § 81A-156).

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray and Smith, . JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 S.E.2d 471, 142 Ga. App. 877, 1977 Ga. App. LEXIS 2159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-trust-company-bank-gactapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack