Mays v. Tharpe & Brooks, Inc., 54589
Decision Date | 26 October 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 3,No. 54589,54589,3 |
Citation | 240 S.E.2d 159,143 Ga.App. 815 |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Parties | J. L. MAYS v. THARPE & BROOKS, INC., et al |
Hatcher, Meyerson & Irvin, Stanley P. Meyerson, Atlanta, for appellant.
Zusmann, Sikes, Pritchard & Cohen, H. William Cohen, Stephen C. Whicker, Atlanta, for appellees.
Action against Dr. J. L. Mays and Wade R. Mason on their guaranty of a $48,000 note from Rondak Construction Company was begun on June 2, 1975 by Tharpe & Brooks, Inc., as assignee of First South Homeowners Co., Inc., original payee. Mays answered on July 2 and Mason on October 28. Mason was adjudged a bankrupt on February 17, 1976. Tharpe moved for summary judgment against Mays in March, and to this motion Mays responded and made affidavit in opposition. That motion for summary judgment was denied, and Tharpe filed a second summary judgment motion. Mays responded, and that motion was denied on February 4, 1977.
In the meantime Mays on October 16, 1976 went on permanent active duty as an officer of the Air Force serving in the Philippines. Through his counsel and by their affidavit in support thereof, Mays moved for a stay of proceedings under the provisions of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 as amended (50 U.S.C.App. § 501 et seq.), augmented by an affidavit of like effect from his wife. That motion to stay was filed December 29, and denied January 11, 1977.
Tharpe filed its third motion for summary judgment, together with supporting affidavits, in April and May. Again Mays moved through his counsel for a stay of proceedings under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, reciting therein that Mays "is on permanent active duty as an officer in the United States Air Force and since October 16, 1976, has been serving in the Philippines, and that the ability of the defendant to conduct his defense is adversely and materially affected by reason of his inability to be present to defend himself, and . . . prays that all proceedings in this action be stayed during the period of such military service and 60 days thereafter." The affidavit asserts that Tharpe's third motion contains "additional conflicting testimony bearing upon the amount alleged to be due" and "containing two new witnesses by affidavit which were not contained in the first two motions for summary judgment." This motion to stay was denied by order of the trial judge on June 17, and Mays appeals.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Catlin v. Catlin
...Palo, 299 N.W.2d 577, 579 (S.D.1980); Power v. Power, 720 S.W.2d 683, 684-685 (Tex.Ct.App.1986). Contra Mays v. Tharpe & Brooks, Inc., 143 Ga.App. 815, 240 S.E.2d 159, 160-161 (1977). However, because we conclude that Joseph has not established that the court's refusal to grant a stay affec......
-
In re Phillips
...S.E. 483 (1901) (it is “ manifestly erroneous ” for a party to the “issue” to be excluded from the courtroom); Mays v. Tharpe & Brooks, 143 Ga.App. 815, 816, 240 S.E.2d 159 (1977) (“A substantial right of a party to litigation is to be present at the trial and render assistance to his couns......
-
Phillips v. Harmon
...is so in order, inter alia, that the party be able to render assistance to his counsel as developments unfold. Mays v. Tharpe & Brooks, 143 Ga.App. 815, 816, 240 S.E.2d 159 (1977).As noted by the Court of Appeals, the right to be present in the context of communications between the trial ju......
-
Morris v. Turnkey Med. Eng'g, Inc.
...v. MARTA, 161 Ga.App. 725, 726, 288 S.E.2d 671 (1982) (party to the issue on trial has a right to be present); Mays v. Tharpe & Brooks, 143 Ga.App. 815, 816, 240 S.E.2d 159 (1977) (a substantial right of a party to litigation is to be present at the trial and render assistance to his counse......