Henry v. Polar Rock Development Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,Nos. 54220,54221,s. 54220,2 |
| Citation | 143 Ga.App. 189,237 S.E.2d 667 |
| Parties | C. D. HENRY v. POLAR ROCK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. POLAR ROCK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. C. D. HENRY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Gilbert & Blum, Fred A. Gilbert, Atlanta, for appellants.
Gershon, Ruden, Pindar & Olim, Jay E. Loeb, Atlanta, for appellee.
Appellants executed a note, unconditional on its face, for $25,000 plus interest payable to appellee, Polar Rock Development Corp. When appellants failed to pay the note at maturity suit was brought. Although a motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of Polar Rock Corp., that motion was set aside. In a subsequent trial before the judge without a jury, judgment again was entered in favor of Polar Rock. This appeal follows.
1. In a cross-appeal appellee (cross-appellant) alleges that the judge erred in granting the motion to set aside. Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellant completely failed to respond to the motion. No responsive affidavit was filed. Appellant made no appearance at the hearing on the motion. In January, 1975, summary judgment was entered in favor of appellee. Appellant did not appeal the summary judgment. On September 9, 1976, appellant filed a "Motion to Vacate." On September 21, 1976, the motion for summary judgment was vacated.
Henry v. Adair Realty Co., 141 Ga.App. 182(3), 233 S.E.2d 39.
Here it was alleged that the affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment was fatally defective because it was made "to the best of (the affiant's) knowledge and information" and because the affidavit contained hearsay.
The affidavit did establish that: (1) Appellant requested services from the affiant, in affiant's capacity as general manager of appellee. (2) Affiant discussed compensation for services rendered with appellant. (3) Affiant negotiated with appellant. (4) As a result of negotiations, appellee accepted a promissory note for $25,000 plus interest in satisfaction of all claims. (5) Appellants have not paid on the note, even though demand for payments was made.
Appellants admitted the execution of the note, that the note was complete and regular and that no money had been paid.
Although portions of the affidavit not made on the affiant's personal knowledge must be disregarded, this would not make the whole affidavit defective. See Crowder v. Electro-Kinetics Corp., 228 Ga. 610 (1), 187 S.E.2d 249.
The affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment was not insufficient. Smith v. Security Mortgage Investors, 139 Ga.App. 635, 1(a), (b), 229 S.E.2d 115; Smith v. Ragan, 140 Ga.App. 33 (1), 230 S.E.2d 89. See also Nevels v. Detroiter Mobile Homes, 120 Ga.App. 60, 169 S.E.2d 716. An affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bey
... ... A New Jersey State Police forensic scientist, Henry Swordsma, testified that the sperm stain found on Ms ... interfered with his frontal-lobe [610 A.2d 822] development. He described that impairment as brain dysfunction rather ... ...
-
C & S Nat. Bank v. Burden, 55165
...methods by which civil judgments may be attacked. Johnson v. Cook, 130 Ga.App. 575(3), 203 S.E.2d 882; Henry v. Polar Rock Dev. Corp., 143 Ga.App. 189(1), 237 S.E.2d 667. It provides, generally, for a collateral attack in any court by any person where a judgment is void on its face, otherwi......
-
Sullivan v. Fabe
...19, 20, 366 S.E.2d 357; Ford v. Ga. Power Co., 151 Ga.App. 748, 749, 261 S.E.2d 474 (physical precedent only); Henry v. Polar Rock, etc., 143 Ga.App. 189, 190, 237 S.E.2d 667. We also find no error in the trial court considering Fabe's motion to file his untimely response to the Sullivans' ......
-
Dutton v. Dykes
...we will treat it as originally denominated, i. e., as a motion to set aside the judgment. See Henry v. Polar Rock Dev. Corp., 143 Ga.App. 189(1), 237 S.E.2d 667 (1977). ...