Vann v. Bice

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Vann v. Bice

194 S.E.2d 259, 127 Ga. App. 579, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 958

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1972

Docket47522

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 194 S.E.2d 259 (Vann v. Bice) 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

Vann v. Bice, 194 S.E.2d 259, 127 Ga. App. 579, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 958 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant filed a claim against the appellee for $350. The appellee filed an answer and counterclaim. The appellant then filed a motion for summary judgment which was supported by affidavits. The motion was set for a hearing on January 31, 1972. The appellee on January 31, 1972, the date of the hearing, filed an amendment to his answer together with an affidavit in which he stated that he was not indebted to the appellant and had in fact overpaid him in the amount of $77. At the hearing the trial judge on his own motion continued the hearing to "permit defendant (appellee) to amend and instructed counsel for both parties to submit memoranda briefs.” On June 5, 1972, the motion for summary judgment was overruled and the appellant appealed. Held:

1. The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in considering the appellee’s affidavit because it was not filed prior to the date of the hearing and no order of the trial judge was entered allowing the same to be filed. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238). However, in the case sub judice the trial judge continued the hearing and passed an order which allowed the appellee to amend. The purpose of the statute is to prevent a party from being surprised the day of the *580 hearing by an affidavit that he would not be in a position to answer. The enumeration of error is without merit.

Argued September 12, 1972 Decided November 16, 1972. F. H. Boney, for appellant. Joseph E. Loggins, for appellee.

2. There was a material issue of fact and the overruling of the motion for summary judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

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

Quillian, Judge.

The appellant filed a claim against the appellee for $350. The appellee filed an answer and counterclaim. The appellant then filed a motion for summary judgment which was supported by affidavits. The motion was set for a hearing on January 31, 1972. The appellee on January 31, 1972, the date of the hearing, filed an amendment to his answer together with an affidavit in which he stated that he was not indebted to the appellant and had in fact overpaid him in the amount of $77. At the hearing the trial judge on his own motion continued the hearing to "permit defendant (appellee) to amend and instructed counsel for both parties to submit memoranda briefs.” On June 5, 1972, the motion for summary judgment was overruled and the appellant appealed. Held:

1. The appellant contends that the trial judge erred in considering the appellee’s affidavit because it was not filed prior to the date of the hearing and no order of the trial judge was entered allowing the same to be filed. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (c) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238). However, in the case sub judice the trial judge continued the hearing and passed an order which allowed the appellee to amend. The purpose of the statute is to prevent a party from being surprised the day of the *580 hearing by an affidavit that he would not be in a position to answer. The enumeration of error is without merit.

Argued September 12, 1972 Decided November 16, 1972. F. H. Boney, for appellant. Joseph E. Loggins, for appellee.

2. There was a material issue of fact and the overruling of the motion for summary judgment was not error.

Judgment affirmed.

Hall, P. J., and Pannell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 S.E.2d 259, 127 Ga. App. 579, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vann-v-bice-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack