Summerlot v. CRAIN-DALY VOLKSWAGEN, INC.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Summerlot v. CRAIN-DALY VOLKSWAGEN, INC.

227 S.E.2d 463, 138 Ga. App. 839, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2336

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 17, 1976

Docket51995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 227 S.E.2d 463 (Summerlot v. CRAIN-DALY VOLKSWAGEN, 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

Summerlot v. CRAIN-DALY VOLKSWAGEN, INC., 227 S.E.2d 463, 138 Ga. App. 839, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff in this case is attempting to recover damages for breach of warranty on a used car. The claimed breach is that the vehicle had a cracked block. Paragraph 3 of plaintiffs complaint, after reciting the sale by defendant to plaintiff, states, "... and warranted that conditions of its engine which caused the water level to be lower than normal was a crack in its engine block.” This constitutes an admission in judicio (Code Ann. § 38-114) and estops plaintiff from showing to the contrary. Although plaintiff recites in his brief that this pleading contains a typographical error, a party to a suit will not be allowed to disprove an admission made in his pleading without withdrawing it from the record. Grigsby v. Fleming, 96 Ga. App. 664 (101 SE2d 217). The grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was correct.

Judgment affirmed.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff in this case is attempting to recover damages for breach of warranty on a used car. The claimed breach is that the vehicle had a cracked block. Paragraph 3 of plaintiffs complaint, after reciting the sale by defendant to plaintiff, states, "... and warranted that conditions of its engine which caused the water level to be lower than normal was a crack in its engine block.” This constitutes an admission in judicio (Code Ann. § 38-114) and estops plaintiff from showing to the contrary. Although plaintiff recites in his brief that this pleading contains a typographical error, a party to a suit will not be allowed to disprove an admission made in his pleading without withdrawing it from the record. Grigsby v. Fleming, 96 Ga. App. 664 (101 SE2d 217). The grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was correct.

Judgment affirmed.

Clark and Stolz, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 S.E.2d 463, 138 Ga. App. 839, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/summerlot-v-crain-daly-volkswagen-inc-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack