Millholland v. Oglesby
| Decision Date | 23 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 23930,23930 |
| Parties | Clyde B. MILLHOLLAND v. William A. OGLESBY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Sam D. Hewlett, Jr., Florence Hewlett Dendy, Atlanta, for appellant.
Gambrell, Harlan, Russell & Moye, Edward W. Killorin, David A. Handley, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Appellant, a nonresident plaintiff suing in Fulton County, Georgia, contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court's order staying proceedings until appellant appears in Fulton County for the taking of his depositions or pays the expenses, including attorney's fees, of taking them at his place of residence is not a final judgment subject to review. This court granted certiorari to review this ruling. See Millholland v. Oglesby, 114 Ga.App. 745, 152 S.E.2d 761. Held:
Justice is the object of all judicial investigations. To this end Georgia adopted a comprehensive discovery statute and gave the courts extensive power to enforce compliance therewith. Code Ann. Ch. 38-21. Under its provisions the court may on motion strike pleadings, dismiss the action or any part thereof, or enter a default judgment when a party wilfully fails to appear for depositions. Code Ann. § 38-2111(d). At the same time the court has inherent power to enforce disclosure by a plaintiff applying to its forum for relief. Code § 24-104. Richmond & Danville Railroad Co. v. Childress, 82 Ga. 719, 9 S.E. 602, 3 L.R.A. 808, 14 Am.St.Rep. 189; Hendricks v. Hendricks, 215 Ga. 408, 410(1), 110 S.E.2d 659.
Under certain circumstances the court may decide the sanctions provided by statute are too severe and apply less harsh measures under its inherent power to enforce obedience. One such power is to stay the proceedings until the party complies with the court's order. Irby v. Irby, 167 Ga. 708, 146 S.E. 489. The stay may be for a fixed period of reasonable length calculated to compel compliance with the discovery procedures. Such orders contemplate further action and, being interlocutory, are not appealable. Langston v. Langston, 189 Ga. 120, 5 S.E.2d 336. However, the stay may be for an indefinite period and require the party to comply therewith or be barred forever from proceeding with his action. In such case, it is our opinion where a party contends that it is impossible for him to comply, as here, such an order effectively terminates his right to trial and is a final adjudication subject to review. Mendenhall...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maxey v. Covington
...Mullinax, 122 Ga.App. 833, 178 S.E.2d 909. The Supreme Court has cautioned against the harsh application of this rule. Millholland v. Oglesby, 223 Ga. 230, 154 S.E.2d 194. It is obvious that such a determination cannot be made in a prospective, self-executing order. A court cannot assume th......
-
Sharpnack v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc.
...its discretion in refusing to strike Hoffinger's answer because of Hoffinger's alleged discovery abuses. Relying on Millholland v. Oglesby, 223 Ga. 230, 154 S.E.2d 194 (1967), the Sharpnacks argue that a trial court has the inherent power to sanction a party who has abused the discovery pro......
-
Smith v. Mullinax
...the less harsh measure when circumstances warrant, stating that 'Justice is the object of all judicial investigations.' Milholland v. Oglesby, 223 Ga. 230, 154 S.E.2d 194. Since Hill had no actual notice to appear for a deposition and the record discloses he has subsequently been located an......
-
Swindell v. Swindell
...the statement of this court cautioning against the imposition of the harsher sanctions permitted by the statute. See Milholland v. Oglesby, 223 Ga. 230, 154 S.E.2d 194. 3. Appellee's motion for sanctions did not specifically allege that appellant's failure to comply with the order compellin......