Glenn v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 61660

Decision Date20 March 1981
Docket NumberNo. 61660,61660
Citation279 S.E.2d 481,158 Ga.App. 98
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

E. Lynn Mitchell, Leroy Langston, Atlanta, for appellant.

Denise Caffrey, Atlanta, for appellee.

BANKE, Judge.

Appellant Glenn sued MARTA alleging that she had sustained personal injuries as a result of the negligence of a MARTA bus driver. MARTA moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion due to the appellant's failure to have her affidavit in opposition to the motion properly notarized. This appeal followed.

The appellant attempted to correct the alleged deficiency by filing a supplemental affidavit executed by the notary, wherein the latter swore that he was a duly appointed notary public at the time he notarized the plaintiff's affidavit. Attached were a specimen of his notary seal and a copy of his certificate of appointment. However, the trial court concluded that the absence of the seal from the original affidavit was a nonamendable defect due to the combined effect of Code Ann. § 71-107, which provides that notaries must provide a seal for the authentication of their notarial acts, and 58 Am.Jur.2d 477, Notaries Public, § 33, which provides that "(w)here a notary is required to possess a seal as a condition precedent to his right to act, and he does not affix his seal at the time of executing a certificate, the defect cannot thereafter be supplied." Held :

"To constitute a complete affidavit, three essential features are requisite: first, the written oath embodying the facts sworn to by the affiant; second, the signature of the affiant thereto; and third, the jurat or attestation, by an officer authorized to administer the oath, that the affidavit was actually sworn to and subscribed before him by the affiant... (However), even where an affidavit constitutes the basis of a proceeding in court, and is essential to the validity of its processes, it is not indispensable that the jurat should be signed by the officer who administered the oath, the material question being whether or not the oath was actually administered and taken; and in the absence of the officer's certificate to this effect, aliunde testimony may be received to establish this material fact." Beach v. Averett, 106 Ga. 73, 74-76, 31 S.E. 806 (1898). Accord, Miller v. Caraker, 9 Ga.App. 255(2), 71 S.E. 9 (1911). Both of these cases were decided under Ga.L. 1863-4, p. 59, which, like the current...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Weekes v. Nationwide General Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • March 30, 1998
    ...actually sworn to and subscribed before him by the affiant. [Cit.]" (Punctuation omitted and emphasis supplied.) Glenn v. MARTA, 158 Ga.App. 98, 99, 279 S.E.2d 481 (1981). In this case, the plaintiff correctly points out that the affidavit was signed by Sims on September 10, 1996, but the a......
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 2001
    ...officer authorized to administer the oath that the affidavit was actually sworn by the affiant before the officer. Glenn v. MARTRA, 158 Ga.App. 98, 99, 279 S.E.2d 481 (1981). Affidavits that fail to comply or to contain the essential elements must be disregarded by the trial court and only ......
  • Duval v. Kidder, A89A0365
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1989
    ...are not competent evidence and are not admissible as evidence. See Clements v. Hendi, 182 Ga.App. 118, 354 S.E.2d 700 and Glenn v. MARTA, 158 Ga.App. 98, 279 S.E.2d 481. Sherwood v. Boshears, 157 Ga.App. 542, 278 S.E.2d In fact, even liberally construing the pleadings as having properly rai......
  • Thacker v. Matthews Tuxedo, Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 1987
    ...if there is a material issue of fact to be tried, rather than to set up a technical pitfall for the unwary advocate. Glenn v. MARTA, 158 Ga.App. 98, 99, 279 S.E.2d 481. Usually, issues of negligence, contributory negligence, and lack of ordinary care for one's safety are not susceptible of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT