Robinson v. Rearden

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Robinson v. Rearden

216 S.E.2d 370, 134 Ga. App. 815, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2182

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 13, 1975

Docket50648

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 216 S.E.2d 370 (Robinson v. Rearden) 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

Robinson v. Rearden, 216 S.E.2d 370, 134 Ga. App. 815, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2182 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

A "pro se” answer timely filed in response to a suit on a note, setting forth the style and number of the case and the date it was filed, denying that the note was dated February 11, 1974, as alleged in the complaint but was actually dated February 11, 1972, as shown on a copy of the note attached to the complaint, and alleging that the "note has been satisfied either by credit to note or by monies received by complainant,” is not a nullity but is [816]*816sufficient to join the issue in the case and to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for judgment by default. Code Ann. §§ 81A-108 (b), (e)(1), (f); cf. Snooks v. Factory Square, Inc., 129 Ga. App. 772 (201 SE2d 168); Knickerbocker Tax Systems v. Texaco, Inc., 130 Ga. App. 383, 384 (2) (203 SE2d 290). Compare Glenco-Belevedere Animal Hospital v. Winters, 129 Ga. App. 621 (200 SE2d 506). Since the name of the corporate defendant and of the individual defendant both appear on the answer, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling that the answer is the answer of both defendants and that neither is in default.

Submitted May 6, 1975 Decided May 13, 1975. David P. Daniel, for appellant. John W. Love, for appellee.

Judgments affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

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

Webb, Judge.

A "pro se” answer timely filed in response to a suit on a note, setting forth the style and number of the case and the date it was filed, denying that the note was dated February 11, 1974, as alleged in the complaint but was actually dated February 11, 1972, as shown on a copy of the note attached to the complaint, and alleging that the "note has been satisfied either by credit to note or by monies received by complainant,” is not a nullity but is [816]*816sufficient to join the issue in the case and to withstand a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for judgment by default. Code Ann. §§ 81A-108 (b), (e)(1), (f); cf. Snooks v. Factory Square, Inc., 129 Ga. App. 772 (201 SE2d 168); Knickerbocker Tax Systems v. Texaco, Inc., 130 Ga. App. 383, 384 (2) (203 SE2d 290). Compare Glenco-Belevedere Animal Hospital v. Winters, 129 Ga. App. 621 (200 SE2d 506). Since the name of the corporate defendant and of the individual defendant both appear on the answer, we will not disturb the trial court’s ruling that the answer is the answer of both defendants and that neither is in default.

Submitted May 6, 1975 Decided May 13, 1975. David P. Daniel, for appellant. John W. Love, for appellee.

Judgments affirmed.

Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 S.E.2d 370, 134 Ga. App. 815, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 2182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-rearden-gactapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack