Montgomery v. Pickle
| Citation | 132 S.E.2d 818,108 Ga.App. 272 |
| Decision Date | 04 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 40220,No. 2,40220,2 |
| Parties | N. D. MONTGOMERY v. W. PICKLE et al |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Chas. W. Anderson, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
James A. Able, Jr., Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Where in a trover action for described personal property, the defendants made a motion for a summary judgment based on the deposition of the plaintiff and the pleadings on file in the case, the burden was on the movants to show that they were entitled to a judgment as a matter of law and that there was no genuine issue of fact to be decided by a jury. Code Ann. Ch. 110-12; Motorola Communications & Electronics v. South Georgia Natural Gas Co., 104 Ga.App. 376, 382, 121 S.E.2d 672.
2. The purpose of a motion for a summary judgment is to eliminate a jury trial where it would be unnecessary, and where the evidence introduced upon the hearing of the motion shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the case, it is proper for the trial judge to grant a summary judgment for the party entitled thereto. Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 46(2), 118 S.E.2d 193.
3. Where, in a case of the nature indicated above, after the defendants had taken the deposition of the plaintiff, they made a motion for a summary judgment, which motion was duly served on the plaintiff, and where the motion recited that it was based on the deposition and the pleadings in the case, and where the deposition with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom demanded a finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, if the plaintiff was to overcome this showing, he had the burden of making a counter showing at the time of the hearing on the motion for a summary judgment, and upon his failure to do so, it was proper for the court to grant the summary judgment. Scales v. Peevy, supra.
4. The deposition of the plaintiff in the instant case, when given a reasonable construction, affirmatively showed that the defendants named in the trover action had never had possession of the personal property sought to be recovered, nor had they converted it, and such evidence, therefore, demanded a judgment for the defendants.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Food Fair, Inc. v. Mock
...v. Aetna Cas. Co., 101 Ga.App. 766, 768, 115 S.E.2d 374; Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 46, 118 S.E.2d 193; Montgomery v. Pickle, 108 Ga.App. 272(3), 132 S.E.2d 818; Crutcher v. Crawford Land Co., 220 Ga. 298, 304, 138 S.E.2d Even if the testimony contained in the plaintiff's deposition c......
-
Giordano v. Stubbs
...Casualty etc. Co., 101 Ga.App. 766, 768, 115 S.E.2d 374, 376; Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 46, 118 S.E.2d 193; Montgomery v. Pickle, 108 Ga.App. 272(3), 132 S.E.2d 818. He 'had his choice of producing counter proof and thus make an issue of fact, or do nothing, that is, create no issue ......
-
Summer-Minter & Associates, Inc. v. Giordano
...697; McKnight v. Guffin, 118 Ga.App. 168(1), 162 S.E.2d 743; Dykes v. Hammock, 116 Ga.App. 389(1), 157 S.E.2d 524; Montgomery v. Pickle, 108 Ga.App. 272(3), 132 S.E.2d 818; Scales v. Peevy, 103 Ga.App. 42, 46, 118 S.E.2d 193. Thus, it is evident that an adjudication on summary judgment is a......
-
Tingle v. Arnold, Cate and Allen
...precluded the rendition of a summary judgment for defendants. Code Ann. § 110-1203. See further in this connection: Montgomery v. Pickle, 108 Ga.App. 272(2), 132 S.E.2d 818; Code Ann. § 81A-156(c); Watkins v. Nationwide &c. Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 801, 149 S.E.2d 749. Appellant points out the......