T & W Farm Supply, Inc. v. McCall

208 S.E.2d 622, 132 Ga. App. 613, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided September 19, 1974·No. 49601·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Webb, Judge.

1. By supplemental record forwarding the order of the trial court it affirmatively appears that the court exercised, and did not abuse, its discretion in allowing an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment to be filed and served on the day of the hearing. Consequently no error appears. Malone v. Ottinger, 118 Ga. App. 778, 782 (165 SE2d 660); Supreme Oil Co. v. Brock, 129 Ga. App. 863 (1) (201 SE2d 659) and cits.; Johnson v. Frazier, 121 Ga. App. 212 (1) (173 SE2d 434).

2. While the instant case is similar to Farmers Mut. Exchange v. Sisk, 131 Ga. App. 206 (205 SE2d 438), where the facts were not in dispute, the affidavit offered here in opposition to the motion prevents our holding that movant has carried its burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.

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

T & W Farm Supply, Inc. v. McCall, 208 S.E.2d 622, 132 Ga. App. 613, 1974 Ga. App. LEXIS 1763 (Ga. Ct. App. 1974).

208 S.E.2d 622 (T & W Farm Supply, Inc. v. McCall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Liberty National Life Insurance v. Houk
281 S.E.2d 583 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
Leagan v. Levine
279 S.E.2d 741 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Liberty National Life Insurance Company v. Houk
278 S.E.2d 120 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Sasser & Co. v. Griffin
210 S.E.2d 34 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1974)