Moore v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 20 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 24593,24593 |
| Citation | 224 Ga. 482,162 S.E.2d 429 |
| Parties | Goodman Hughes MOORE v. Louella G. Moore HANSON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John N. Crudup, Gainesville, for appellant.
Robinson, Thompson, Buice & Harben, Robert B. Thompson, Gainesville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
1. Where, within the time allowed by law, the defendant served upon the plaintiff and caused to be filed with the clerk of the court, requests for admissions as to the truth of relevant matters of fact set forth therein, and where the plaintiff failed to file and serve upon the defendant within 15 days from the service upon him of the requests for admissions (15 days being the period designated in the request for the filing of the response, no shorter or longer time having been allowed by the court) either (1) a sworn statement denying specifically the matters of which admissions were requested or setting forth in detail the reasons why he could not truthfully admit or deny those matters or (2) written objections to the requests upon one or more of the grounds allowed by law, the trial judge was authorized to treat the matters covered by the requests for admissions as admitted and to pass upon the defendant's subsequently filed motion for a summary judgment upon the basis that the facts set forth in the requests were true. Code § 81A-136.
2. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow the filing of the plaintiff's response to the requests for admissions two weeks after it was due to have been filed, where the only showing as to providential cause of the failure to timely serve upon the defendant and file his response was 'that he was ill and unable to go to his attorney's office in order to answer the interrogatories due on the 19th day of December, 1967.' Such affidavit failed to show the nature of the plaintiff's illness and its duration; failed to show that plaintiff was unable to communicate with his attorney or that his attorney was unable, prior to the date his response was due to have been served and filed, to move on his behalf for an extension of time for serving and filing the response, and failed to show any fact justifying the conclusion that the plaintiff could not have served and filed his response sooner. In the absence of a showing of at least these minimum essentials clearly demonstrating the inability of the plaintiff to answer sooner the requests for admissions,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osceola Inns v. State Highway Dept., s. 49795
...to the request for admissions and we decline to interfere. Williamson v. Lunsford, 119 Ga.App. 240(4), 166 S.E.2d 622. Moore v. Hanson, 224 Ga. 482(2), 162 S.E.2d 429. There being no denials of the requests for admissions before the court, matters contained in the request must be treated as......
-
Trapnell v. Smith
...40 S.E. 315; Fleming v. Roberts, 114 Ga. 634(2), 40 S.E. 792; Carter v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 109 Ga. 573(1), 35 S.E. 61; Moore v. Hanson, 224 Ga. 482(3), 162 S.E.2d 429; Grimsley v. State, 225 Ga. 567(2), 170 S.E.2d 238. And while this court, in order to affirm a trial judge, may do so for a ......
-
Kitchens v. State, 26901
...(Code Ann. § 2-3704); Velkey v. Grimes, 214 Ga. 420, 105 S.E.2d 224; Abrams v. State, 223 Ga. 216, 225, 154 S.E.2d 443; Moore v. Hanson, 224 Ga. 482(3), 162 S.E.2d 429; Bonner v. Smith, 226 Ga. 250(2), 174 S.E.2d 438. Under the foregoing principles, grounds of enumerated error numbered 1, 2......
-
Byrd v. Bowie
...for admissions established a complete claim for the relief sought, except as to the unliquidated damages. See Moore v. Hanson, 224 Ga. 482(1), 162 S.E.2d 429, supra; Bailey v. Bailey, 227 Ga. 55, 178 S.E.2d 864, supra. However, the amount of damages, other than the value of the equipment, i......