Knickerbocker Tax Systems, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48547,No. 2,48547,2 |
| Citation | 203 S.E.2d 290,130 Ga.App. 383 |
| Parties | KNICKERBOCKER TAX SYSTEMS, INC. v. TEXACO, INC |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Paul C. Meyers, Atlanta, for appellant.
J. Sam Plowden, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Does a Georgia corporation have the right to defend an action against it without a lawyer? Is an answer to a complaint on account containing an express denial of the debt legally sufficient? These two questions are presented in this appeal.
Texaco, Inc. sued Knickerbocker Tax Systems, Inc., in the Civil Court of Fulton County. The complaint was in the usual form with one paragraph alleging jurisdiction and the other that 'Defendant is indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $1,321.78 on an account, for which demand has been made and defendant has failed and refused to pay same . . .' Defendant corporation filed the usual form answer, the first paragraph admitting jurisdiction and the second that 'Defendant denies paragraph 2 of the plaintiff's petition.' This answer was not filed by an attorney, but by the corporation for itself, the pleading being signed 'Knickerbocker Tax Systems, Inc. by Nick M. Belluso, Chairman/Board' and with corporate seal affixed.
Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the answer upon two grounds: (1) '. . . it fails to set forth an affirmative defense as required by law . . .' and (2) '. . . it was not timely filed by an attorney at law authorized to practice law in this State and therefore cannot be accepted by the Court as a proper answer.' Thereupon defendant corporation through an authorized attorney amended its answer (1) to add the name of a licensed lawyer to the original answer, (2) that the two paragraphs constituting the original answer as filed be designated as 'First Defense' and (3) added two additional defenses. The trial court sustained the motion to dismiss the answer 'on the ground that the Corporate defendant must be represented by a licensed attorney and not by an agent of the corporation who is not an attorney; and motion to dismiss is further sustained on the ground that the original answer of defendant is insufficient and the amended answer was not timely filed.' This order included a judgment for plaintiff from which defendant has taken this appeal.
1. Dixon v. Reliable Loans, Inc., 112 Ga.App. 618, 145 S.E.2d 771, held that a corporation could file suit on its own behalf without a lawyer. This ruling was based upon the language of two actions of the Annotated Code. One of these was § 9-401, Ga.L.1931,[130 Ga.App. 384] pp. 191, 194; 1937, pp. 753, 754, which defines the practice of law in Georgia. There the court's opinion noted the specific proviso in the statute which states 'Provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any corporation, voluntary association, or individual from doing any act or acts hereinabove set out, to which said persons are parties . . .' (Emphasis in original.) The other Code section was then Code Ann. § 22-1827, the pertinent portion being paragraph (b) which stated corporations had standing 'To sue and be sued in any court of law or equity.' When the 1968 General Assembly enacted the Georgia Business Corporation Code contained in Title 22 of the Annotated Code it set forth in §§ 22-202(a)(3) (iii) even broader language than was in the previous statute. The new statute expressly gave corporations the power 'To sue and be sued, complain and defend, in all courts, and to participate in any judicial, administrative, arbitrative or other action or proceeding.' As this comprehensive legislation was passed three years after the Court of Appeals decision, we deem it incumbent to adhere to the previous ruling of this court in Dixon v. Reliable Loans, Inc., 112 Ga.App. 618, 145, S.E.2d 771, supra.
Appellee's counsel argues that the Dixon case arose in a small claims court and should be limited to such jurisdictions. This cannot be accepted, however, because the broad language of the 1968 law specifically says 'in all courts.'
The requirement of Code Ann. § 81A-111 that pleadings are to be signed by an attorney is by its terms limited to 'a party represented by an attorney.'
On a personal note, the three judges of this division are compelled to observe that the lay public would be better served and the general welfare enhanced if the legislature would pass the necessary law forbidding corporations from appearing in propria persona in the courts. Such restrictive legislation would conform with the situation generally prevailing in our country that a corporation being an artificial entity should not be permitted to appear on its own behalf through an agent other than an attorney at law. See 19 A.L.R.3d 1075.
2. The answer was skeleton in form but was sufficient as it met the requirements of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trammel v. Bradberry
...134 Ga.App. 815, 816, 216 S.E.2d 370 (1975) (a short pro se answer denying the note was sufficient); Knickerbocker Tax Systems v. Texaco, 130 Ga.App. 383, 384-385(2), 203 S.E.2d 290 (1973) (physical precedent only) (a simple two-paragraph answer that denied all the contentions of the compla......
-
McCombs v. Southern Regional Med. Center, A98A0211.
...under the Civil Practice Act it also can incorporate defenses other than mere denial of allegations. Knickerbocker Tax Systems v. Texaco, 130 Ga.App. 383, 384(2), 203 S.E.2d 290 (1973), rev'd on other grounds, Eckles v. Atlanta Technology Group, 267 Ga. 801, 806, 485 S.E.2d 22 (1997). "The ......
-
Oahu Plumbing and Sheet Metal, Ltd. v. Kona Const., Inc., 6823
...are prohibited to appear on behalf of another person. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)10 We note that in Knickerbocker Tax Systems, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc., 130 Ga.App. 383, 203 S.E.2d 290 (1973), the court held that language in a statute nearly identical to HRS § 416-26 (1976) would permit a corpor......
-
Eckles v. Atl. Tech. Group, Inc.
...a contrary result. Universal Scientific v. Wolf, 165 Ga. App. 752 (302 S.E.2d 616) (1983); Knickerbocker Tax Systems v. Texaco, Inc., 130 Ga. App. 383 (203 S.E.2d 290) (1973); Dixon v. Reliable Loans, 112 Ga. App. 618 (145 S.E.2d 771) (1965). However, all of these Court of Appeals cases are......