Floyd & Beasley Transfer Co. v. Copeland
| Decision Date | 22 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 39867,No. 3,39867,3 |
| Citation | 130 S.E.2d 143,107 Ga.App. 304 |
| Parties | FLOYD & BEASLEY TRANSFER CO., Inc. v. Doris G. COPELAND |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Bryan, Carter, Ansley & Smith, Melburne D. McLendon, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Llop & Long, Fred A. Gilbert, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where a motion to dismiss an action is sustained by the trial court and it appears from the record that the ground upon which this motion was sustained was not a ground which adjudicated the merits of the controversy, such judgment of dismissal will not be a bar to a subsequent proceeding for the same cause of action brought within the time allowed by law. Code §§ 110-503, 110-504. Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga.App. 624, 122 S.E.2d 463 and cits.
2. The foregoing rule of law is applicable to those cases where the dismissal was for want of prosecution. Kinney v. Avery & Co., 14 Ga.App. 180, 181(8), 80 S.E. 663. Analogous to such dismissal is the dismissal of an action, under the provisions of Code Ann. § 38-2111 as enacted by the act approved March 25, 1959 (Ga.L.1959, pp. 425, 440), for failure of the plaintiff to comply with an order requiring answers to interrogatories. Regardless of what the rule may be in other jurisdictions, in Georgia a dismissal on purely technical grounds is not a bar to the rebringing of the action within the statutory time under the authorities cited in the first headnote. The statement in such an order of dismissal that the plaintiff's action is dismissed 'with prejudice' cannot operate to change the character of the order. Accordingly, the general demurrer to the petition in the instant case which raised the question of the right of the plaintiff to rebring her action within six months after it had been dismissed, under Code Ann. § 38-2111, because of her failure to comply with an order requiring her to answer certain interrogatories of the defendant, was properly overruled.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Millholland v. Oglesby
...141 S.E.2d 112); or the dismissal of the action (Rider v. Rider, 110 Ga.App. 382, 138 S.E.2d 621, and Cf. Floyd & Beasley Transfer Co. v. Copeland, 107 Ga.App. 304, 130 S.E.2d 143), but not all of them. In Hartley Pen Co. v. United States District Court, 287 F.2d 324 (9th Cir.) it was asser......
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daugherty
...105 Ga.App. 340, 356, 124 S.E.2d 758; Tracy's Auto Parts, Inc. v. Turner, 105 Ga.App. 418, 124 S.E.2d 687; Floyd & Beasley Transfer Co. v. Copeland, 107 Ga.App. 304, 130 S.E.2d 143; Wilson v. Barrow, 107 Ga.App. 555(4), 130 S.E.2d 812; Fricks v. Cole, 109 Ga.App. 143, 146(3), 135 S.E.2d 512......
-
Denham v. Shellman Grain Elevator, Inc.
...of prosecution is not an adjudication on the merits. Kinney v. Avery & Co., 14 Ga.App. 180, 80 S.E. 663; Floyd & Beasley Transfer Co. v. Copeland, 107 Ga.App. 304, 130 S.E.2d 143. We therefore hold that the dismissal of the motion for new trial cannot be the law of the case as to the merits......
-
Maxey v. Covington
...to comply with an order requiring answers to interrogatories was within the 'purely technical' rule. Floyd & Beasley Transfer Co. v. Copeland, 107 Ga.App. 304, 130 S.E.2d 143. The defendant contends that the rule is changed under the CPA because Code Ann. § 81A-141(b) expressly provides tha......