Ogden Equipment Co. v. Talmadge Farms, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 28790,28790 |
| Parties | OGDEN EQUIPMENT CO. v. TALMADGE FARMS, INC., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Scheer & Elsner, Robert A. Elsner, Atlanta, for appellant.
Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Victor A. Cavanaugh, Lewis N. Jones, Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The Court of Appeals has certified the question of whether a motion for summary judgment under Code Ann. § 81A-156 or a motion under Code Ann. § 81A-112(b), which is treated as one for summary judgment, can be granted on matters in abatement.
'Rule 56 contemplates a judgment on the merits, and cannot be properly utilized to raise matter in abatement,' 6 Moore's Federal Practice 2437, § 56.15(8). See also 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, 402-403, § 2713. 'Since a motion for summary judgment is designed to test the merits of the claim, the defenses enumerated in Rule 12(b)(1) through Rule 12(b)(5) and Rule 12(b)(7) generally are not proper subjects for motions for summary judgment. . . .' 5 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 676, § 1366. See also 2A Moore's Federal Practice 2312, § 12.09 and Summer-Minter & Asso. v. Giordano, 231 Ga. 601, 606, 203 S.E.2d 173. The language to the contrary found in Thompson v. Abbott, 226 Ga. 353, 355, 174 S.E.2d 904 is overruled.
For the proper procedure in disposing of matters in abatement before trial see Code Ann. §§ 81A-112(d) and 81A-143(b).
Certified question answered in the negative.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose Hall, Ltd. v. CHASE MANHATTAN OVERSEAS BANK.
...the merits. E.g., Summer-Minter & Assoc., Inc. v. Giordano, 231 Ga. 601, 203 S.E.2d 173, 176 (1974); Ogden Equipment Co. v. Talmadge Farms, Inc., 232 Ga. 614, 208 S.E.2d 459, 459 (1974). Likewise, a dismissal for failure to state a claim may, under certain circumstances, be an adjudication ......
-
Department of Transp. v. Dupree, A02A1573.
...for subject matter jurisdiction has been satisfied, and the action can then be refiled. See generally Ogden Equip. Co. v. Talmadge Farms, 232 Ga. 614, 615, 208 S.E.2d 459 (1974); Kim v. Dept. of Transp., 235 Ga.App. 480, 481-482(2), 510 S.E.2d 50 (1998); Hight v. Blankenship, 199 Ga.App. 74......
-
Riley v. State
...is a factual determination resulting in a disposition of the factual merits of a controversy. See, Ogden Equipment Company v. Talmadge Farms, Inc. et al., 232 Ga. 614, 208 S.E.2d 459 (1974); Williams v. Heykow, Inc. et al., 171 Ga.App. 936, 321 S.E.2d 431 (1984); Hoke v. Retail Credit Corpo......
-
Porter v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp.
...Ford, 149 Ga.App. 354, 357, 254 S.E.2d 426 (1979). Because subject matter jurisdiction is such a matter, Ogden Equip. Co. v. Talmadge Farms, 232 Ga. 614, 615, 208 S.E.2d 459 (1974), it must be resolved on a motion pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12(b), not by a motion for summary judgment. See id.;......