Black v. Lowry
Decision Date | 24 June 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 62024,62024 |
Parties | BLACK et al. v. LOWRY. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Eugene R. Simons, Atlanta, for appellants.
Raoul Lerow, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellee, an architect, brought this action on open account against Black and Barnum individually, and jointly doing business as a partnership called Phoenix Venture, for services rendered. Barnum died before he could be served and in due course his administrator was added as a defendant. After a non-jury trial judgment was entered for appellee against all defendants. Upon denial of a motion for a new trial this appeal was taken. Held :
1. Prior to and during trial the issue of the statute of limitation was not raised by the pleadings or otherwise. Trial was held and concluded on September 15, 1980, but the trial court did not announce its judgment at that time. On September 17 appellant Black moved to amend his defensive pleadings to raise the statute of limitation. On October 3, the trial court issued its judgment in an order relating factual findings and conclusions of law which found that the motion to amend raising the statute of limitation was filed after the case was concluded and was too late. In several enumerations appellants claim the trial court erred in making this finding, and in granting appellee's claim which would have been barred by the four-year statute of limitation.
Leslie, Inc. v. Solomon, 141 Ga.App. 673(1), 674, 234 S.E.2d 104.
McLendon, etc., Co. v. McDonough, etc., Co., 145 Ga.App. 137(1), 140, 243 S.E.2d 537, reversed on other grounds, 242 Ga. 510, 250 S.E.2d 424, opinion modified, 149 Ga.App. 115, 253 S.E.2d 772.
When appellant Black moved to amend his answer the trial court did not grant the required leave to do so, and his pleadings accordingly were not amended to raise the statute of limitation. Moreover, even assuming, without deciding, that the trial court had discretion to grant leave to raise the defense after the trial, it would have been error under the circumstances. Suit on open account was filed in January, 1978. A four-year statute of limitation applies to such suits. Code Ann. § 3-706. Trial was held in September, 1980. In the long interval between commencement of the suit and trial appellants made no attempts at discovery. Appellee's requests for admissions provided numerous documents showing that the amount claimed arose prior to January, 1974 and might be barred by the statute of limitation. During trial similar evidence was produced, which appellants claim was their first notice of the possible defense of the statute of limitation. Had appellants so moved during trial, the trial court had discretion to grant leave to amend their pleadings to raise the defense. See Lanier Petroleum v. Hyde, 144 Ga.App. 441(2), 241 S.E.2d 62. However, the record and transcript show no effort to raise this defense by any means during trial.
Leslie, Inc. v. Solomon, 141 Ga.App. 673, 675, 253 S.E.2d 772, supra.
Brown v. Quarles, 154 Ga.App. 350(1), 268 S.E.2d 403, is cited by appellants. In that case it was held that the statute of limitation may be raised as a defense to a counterclaim by motion at trial. It is distinguishable factually from the instant case, in which there was no motion to raise the statute during trial but a motion to amend appellants' answer pleading the statute after trial. In addition, in Brown v. Quarles, the statute of limitation was permitted to be raised by motion during trial because, among other reasons, a counterclaim does not require a responsive pleading and Code Ann. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abernethy v. Cates, 73472
...that, since trial had begun, appellants' ability to amend pleadings as a matter of right had come to an end. See Black v. Lowry, 159 Ga.App. 57(1), 282 S.E.2d 700 (1981). The trial court permitted the amendment over appellants' objection. Appellants now contend that the trial court did not ......
-
Jackson v. Paces Ferry Dodge, Inc.
...a party's unfettered right to amend ceases upon the commencement of the trial proper and the taking of evidence. Black v. Lowry, 159 Ga.App. 57(1), 282 S.E.2d 700 (1981). See also Slater v. Jackson, 163 Ga.App. 342(1), 294 S.E.2d 557 (1982). Inasmuch as it is undisputed that no pretrial ord......
-
Ford's & Gantt Co., Inc. v. Wallace
...his pleading only by leave of court or by the consent of the adverse party. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Black v. Lowry, 159 Ga.App. 57, 58(1), 282 S.E.2d 700 (1981). Wallace repeatedly objected to introduction of evidence of the [A] post-judgment amendment would clearly have been p......
-
Thornton v. Ellis, 74436
...refusal to allow appellants to amend their pleadings after the presentation of evidence had begun. See generally Black v. Lowry, 159 Ga.App. 57, 58(1), 282 S.E.2d 700 (1981). Judgment BANKE, P.J., and BENHAM, J., concur. ...