Bussie v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 06 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 42169,42169,2 |
| Citation | 114 Ga.App. 298,151 S.E.2d 186 |
| Parties | Charles BUSSIE v. Jesse L. WILSON et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Henritze, Baker & Bailey, Kirby G. Bailey, Atlanta, for appellant.
Greer, Morris & Murray, Richard G. Greer, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. When the defendant has made a motion for a summary judgment under the provisions of Code Ann. Ch. 110-12, which motion is supported by affidavits, depositions, or other evidentiary matter showing a prima facie right on the part of the defendant to have a summary judgment rendered in his favor, the duty is cast upon the plaintiff to produce rebuttal evidence at the hearing thereof, by the introduction of depositions or affidavits, sufficient to show to the court that there is a genuine issue of fact to be decided by the jury. Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 47, 118 S.E.2d 193.
2. 'Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated (t)herein.' Code Ann. § 110-1205.
3. An affidavit which shows on its face that it is not made on the personal knowledge of the affiant is insufficient to show to the court that there is a genuine dispute for the jury to decide. Cochran v. Southern Business University, 110 Ga.App. 666, 139 S.E.2d 400; Planters Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. v. Chance, 108 Ga.App. 146, 132 S.E.2d 90.
4. In the case sub judice the plaintiff's case is based upon the fact that an automobile in which he was riding was being driven by one Jim Pope as the agent of the owner Jesse L. Wilson at the time it collided with a telephone pole injuring the plaintiff. The affidavit of Jim Pope in support of the defendants' motion for summary judgment states that he was not the driver of the automobile and that another named person was the driver, while the counteraffidavit of the plaintiff affirmatively shows that he does not know who the driver was but that he believes Pope was the driver. It then gives his reasons for such belief. Accordingly, such affidavit is not sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact as to such controlling issue in the case and the trial court did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. Gately, s. 44075
...for the jury to decide.' Cochran v. Southern Business University, Inc., 110 Ga.App. 666(2), 139 S.E.2d 400. And see Bussie v. Wilson, 114 Ga.App. 298, 151 S.E.2d 186. (b) 'In considering depositions and affidavits in support of or in opposition to motions for summary judgments the facts con......
-
Federal Ins. Co. v. Oakwood Steel Co.
...Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 112 Ga.App. 366(1), 145 S.E.2d 104; Benefield v. Malone, 112 Ga.App. 408(2), 145 S.E.2d 732; Bussie v. Wilson, 114 Ga.App. 298(3), 151 S.E.2d 186; Cooper v. Brock, 117 Ga.App. 501(3), 161 S.E.2d 75; Chandler v. Gately, 119 Ga.App. 513(10), 167 S.E.2d 697; Short & Pa......
-
Nipper v. Crisp County, 53315
... ... Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 47, 118 S.E.2d 193; Cochran v. Southern Business University, 110 Ga.App. 666, 139 S.E.2d 400; Bussie v. Wilson, 114 Ga.App. 298, 151 ... S.E.2d 186." Stephens County v. Gaines, 128 Ga.App. 661(1), 197 S.E.2d 424, 425 ... The fact ... ...
-
U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Day
...v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 47, 118 S.E.2d 193; Cochran v. Southern Business University, 110 Ga.App. 666, 139 S.E.2d 400; Bussie v. Wilson, 114 Ga.App. 298, 151 S.E.2d 186.' Stephens County v. Gaines, 128 Ga.App. 661(1), 197 S.E.2d Through its supporting affidavits, defendant demonstrated a p......