Davis v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
Decision Date | 13 March 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 44311,44311,2 |
Citation | 119 Ga.App. 374,167 S.E.2d 214 |
Parties | H. F. DAVIS v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY et al |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Whipple & Arnold, Alvin W. Arnold, Cochran, for appellant.
Anderson, Walker & Reichert, Albert P. Reichert, Jr., Macon, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
On August 26, 1966, a collision occurred between automobiles driven by H. F. Davis and Preston Roland. August 25, 1968, was a Sunday, and on Monday, August 26, 1968, Davis filed an action for damages resulting from the collision against Roland, an uninsured motorist. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Davis' unisured motorist insurance carrier, intervened and filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the claim was barred by the two-year statute of limitation under Code Ann. § 3-1004. The trial court sustained the motion, dismissed the complaint, and Davis appeals. Held:
It is contended that CPA § 6(a) (Code Ann. § 81A-106(a)) authorized the filing of the suit on Monday, August 26, since the last day for filing the complaint under the two-year statute of limitation (Code Ann. § 3-1004) fell on the preceding Sunday. CPA § 6(a) provides:
For purposes here the comparable federal rule is practically identical with our CPA § 6(a), except that the federal rule does not contain the last sentence of our rule 6(a). See 2 Moore's Federal Practice, Par. 1462; 1967 Supp. p. 42.
2 Moore, supra, at 1470-1471 (Emphasis supplied). As succinctly stated in Joint Council Dining Car Employees Local 370, Hotel and Restaurant Emp. Intern. Alliance v. Delaware, L. & W.R. Co., 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 417, 420: See also Ferd. Mulhens, Inc. v. Higgins, 55 F.Supp. 42 (S.D.N.Y.).
While it is contended that the phrase 'an applicable statute' contained in § 6(a) should be construed to mean a statute of limitation, it is obvious from the above authorities that the phrase refers to statutes expressly applicable to proceedings had after the commencement of action. The last sentence of our CPA § 6(a), referring to periods whether measured in 'days, months, years, or other unit of * * * time,' rather than authorizing an inference that the section could be applied to a statute of limitation, appears rather to obviate the difficulties encountered in construing Code Ann. § 102-102(8) where the time period is described as 'a number of days.' See, e.g., Curtis v. College Park Lumber Co., 145 Ga. 601(2), 89 S.E. 680, holding that this section does not applty where months and years are to be computed. Thus we conclude that CPA § 6(a) does not apply directly to determine the computation of the period of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schaefer v. Mayor and Council of City of Athens
...the time within which an action may be instituted, or when it may be barred by a statute of limitation. Davis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 119 Ga.App. 374, 167 S.E.2d 214, and citations. Consequently, it does not come to the aid of plaintiff in the giving of the requisite notic......
-
Zeeman Mfg. Co. v. L. R. Sams Co., 45748
...Federal Practice, § 6.06. Quoting from this section of Moore and a federal case there cited, we held in Davis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 119 Ga.App. 374, 167 S.E.2d 214 that the phrase 'applicable statute' refers directly only to statutes applicable to proceedings had after t......
-
Bellegarde Custom Kitchens v. Leavitt
...judicial interpretation to the contrary. Fulghum v. Baxley, 219 S.W.2d 1014 (Tex.Civ.App.1949); Davis v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 119 Ga.App. 374, 167 S.E.2d 214 (1969). '. . . (I)n computing such periods of time a court may well adopt, by analogy, the method of computatio......
-
Georgia Power Co. v. Whitmire
...to such proceedings. It is not intended to modify and change existing statutes of limitation.' " Davis v. U. S. Fidelity etc. Co., 119 Ga.App. 374, 375, 167 S.E.2d 214, 215, supra (emphasis supplied). See also Leathers v. Gilland, 141 Ga.App. 681, 234 S.E.2d 336 (1977). These cases propose ......