Wilkerson v. Helena Chemical Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Wilkerson v. Helena Chemical Co.

236 S.E.2d 620, 239 Ga. 271, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 883

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 20, 1977

Docket32336

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 S.E.2d 620 (Wilkerson v. Helena Chemical Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilkerson v. Helena Chemical Co., 236 S.E.2d 620, 239 Ga. 271, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 883 (Ga. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Chief Justice.

Helena Chemical Company filed an equitable complaint to set aside a judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution. After hearing the trial court found that the judgment should be set aside due to accident and mistake *272 without negligence or fault to the plaintiff.

Argued June 13, 1977 Decided June 20, 1977. Cheryle T. Bryan, for appellant. Edwin T. Cotton, for appellee.

This case began when Helena Chemical Company filed suit against appellant on an open account. Appellant answered and the case was placed on the trial calendar. Counsel for both parties entered into negotiations toward a compromise offer. When appellant’s counsel could not get in touch with his client, he informed Helena’s counsel that there would be no offer of compromise and that he would dismiss the defensive pleadings and allow Helena to take a judgment on the pleadings. When the case was called, appellant’s counsel withdrew from the case and reasoned that after withdrawal he did not have authority to dismiss the defensive pleadings. The trial court on its own motion entered an order of dismissal for want of prosecution on the following day. Helena’s counsel was not informed of this action until sometime later.

"Where by acts and statements of a defendant a plaintiff is misled into the belief that the defendant will not resist the plaintiffs claim, and he, acting under this belief, fails to appear and prosecute his claim, as he would have done but for these statements of the defendant, it would be unconscionable to allow the defendant to take advantage of the plaintiffs absence and have a decree entered in his favor which concluded for all time the plaintiffs right to enforce his claim.” Bigham v. Kistler, 114 Ga. 453, 456 (40 SE 303) (1901). The trial court did not err in setting aside its former judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Nichols, Chief Justice.

Helena Chemical Company filed an equitable complaint to set aside a judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution. After hearing the trial court found that the judgment should be set aside due to accident and mistake *272 without negligence or fault to the plaintiff.

Argued June 13, 1977 Decided June 20, 1977. Cheryle T. Bryan, for appellant. Edwin T. Cotton, for appellee.

This case began when Helena Chemical Company filed suit against appellant on an open account. Appellant answered and the case was placed on the trial calendar. Counsel for both parties entered into negotiations toward a compromise offer. When appellant’s counsel could not get in touch with his client, he informed Helena’s counsel that there would be no offer of compromise and that he would dismiss the defensive pleadings and allow Helena to take a judgment on the pleadings. When the case was called, appellant’s counsel withdrew from the case and reasoned that after withdrawal he did not have authority to dismiss the defensive pleadings. The trial court on its own motion entered an order of dismissal for want of prosecution on the following day. Helena’s counsel was not informed of this action until sometime later.

"Where by acts and statements of a defendant a plaintiff is misled into the belief that the defendant will not resist the plaintiffs claim, and he, acting under this belief, fails to appear and prosecute his claim, as he would have done but for these statements of the defendant, it would be unconscionable to allow the defendant to take advantage of the plaintiffs absence and have a decree entered in his favor which concluded for all time the plaintiffs right to enforce his claim.” Bigham v. Kistler, 114 Ga. 453, 456 (40 SE 303) (1901). The trial court did not err in setting aside its former judgment of dismissal for want of prosecution.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.E.2d 620, 239 Ga. 271, 1977 Ga. LEXIS 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilkerson-v-helena-chemical-co-ga-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack