Miller v. Douglas, 30222
| Decision Date | 17 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 30222,30222 |
| Citation | 235 Ga. 222,219 S.E.2d 144 |
| Parties | Herbert A. MILLER v. John T. DOUGLAS, Personal Representative. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Mario Misci, Stewart T. Herrick, Boston, Mass., for appellant.
J. H. Highsmith, Miles & McCoy, Peyton Miles, Baxley, Walters & Davis, W. Emory Walters, Rick F. Ellis, Ocilla, for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of summary judgment. The appellant filed an equitable petition to set aside a divorce decree in which he was served by publication. The former wife is now deceased and this action is being defended by her personal representative, John T. Douglas. The appellant had previously filed a motion to set aside this same decree which was granted by the trial court. On appeal this court reversed the trial court holding: 'A motion to set aside under (Code Ann. § 81A-160(d)) must be predicated upon some nonamendable defect which does appear upon the face of the record or pleadings.' Miller v. Miller, 230 Ga. 777, 199 S.E.2d 241. But see Ga.L.1974, p. 1138, amending this section. Upon return to the trial court the appellant filed the present petition.
In support of the motion for summary judgment, the appellant introduced the transcript of the previous appearance and appellee filed affidavits in opposition thereto. The appellant contends appellee is bound by the former record and that an estoppel operates against the defendant to contest those findings of fact which counsel for defendant had previously stipulated.
This being an entirely new case and not a continuation of the previous case, the record adduced on the former case, based on the same cause of action, could be introduced in support of the motion. This record is of no greater weight than other affidavits, depositions, and other documentary evidence in support of or in opposition to the motion.
In motions for summary judgment, this court cannot consider the credibility of witnesses or their affidavits and a jury must resolve the question and the conflicts in the evidence which it produces. Associates Financial Services Company, Inc. v. International Harvester Credit Corporation, 127 Ga.App. 636, 637, 194 S.E.2d 518.
The decision in Lampkin v. Edwards, 222 Ga. 288(3), 149 S.E.2d 708, and cases following it, holding the testimony of 'a party who offers himself as a witness in his own behalf is to be construed most strongly against him,' when passing upon a motion for summary judgment, does not apply to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fulton Cnty. v. Ward-Poag
...finder of fact must resolve the question of credibility and the conflicts in the evidence which it produces.") (citing Miller v. Douglas , 235 Ga. 222, 223, 219 S.E.2d 144 (1975) ). And if the superior court does so, the court should bear in mind that the Slater test, although the appropria......
-
Fulton County v. Ward-Poag
...... the question of credibility and the conflicts in the evidence which it produces.") (citing Miller v. Douglas , 235 Ga. 222, 223, 219 S.E.2d 144 (1975) ). And if the superior court does so, the ......
-
Allen v. King Plow Co.
...precedent only); English v. Crenshaw Supply Co., 193 Ga. App. 354, 359(2), 387 S.E.2d 628 (1989); see also Miller v. Douglas, 235 Ga. 222, 223, 219 S.E.2d 144 (1975). Hartley's testimony raises an issue of fact on the issues of assumption of risk and contributory negligence. Other evidence ......
-
Ezor v. Thompson
...Supreme Court made plain that the self-contradictory testimony rule applies to parties and not non-party witnesses. Miller v. Douglas, 235 Ga. 222, 223, 219 S.E.2d 144 (1975). [The] holding [that] "the testimony of a party who offers himself as a witness in his own behalf is to be construed......