Page v. Holiday Inns, Inc.

Citation245 Ga. 12,262 S.E.2d 783
Decision Date03 January 1980
Docket NumberNo. 35533,35533
PartiesPAGE v. HOLIDAY INNS, INC. et al.
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

Robert A. Elsner, Atlanta, for appellant.

Glenn Frick, Robert P. Bleiberg, Atlanta, for appellees.

UNDERCOFLER, Presiding Justice.

This is a certiorari. Holiday Inns v. Page, 151 Ga.App. 55, 258 S.E.2d 909 (1979). The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of his action "with prejudice" should not have been corrected as a clerical error under Code Ann. § 81A-160(g) to show "without prejudice." We reverse.

The plaintiff's attorney dictated and signed the order of dismissal, which was then filed, without reading it to insure that it stated "without prejudice." He intended to voluntarily dismiss the action and refile against the same defendants plus an additional defendant. He had this right under Code Ann. § 81A-141(a). Defendants assert no facts showing appellant intended to preclude his right to refile his action. The motion to correct was filed promptly within the same term and there are no issues of laches, stale claims, or estoppel. The trial judge permitted the correction after hearing.

A voluntary dismissal under Code Ann. § 81A-141(a) is a matter of right and terminates the action. It is not a judgment of the court but it is an order in the case by virtue of the statute. Code Ann. § 81A-160(g) provides, "(c) lerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court . . ." In our opinion a voluntary dismissal is an "order" within the meaning of Code Ann. § 81A-160(g), and subject to correction as provided therein.

The voluntary dismissal here "with prejudice" was plainly a mistake. It was discovered promptly and immediate action taken to have the error corrected. The defendants claim no prejudice beyond that which is experienced from a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Our brethren on the Court of Appeals are sharply divided but we are of the unanimous view that the evidence here compels a conclusion that the error was a clerical mistake and its correction was proper. Cagle v. Dixon, 234 Ga. 698, 217 S.E.2d 598 (1975).

Judgment reversed.

NICHOLS, C. J., JORDAN, HILL, BOWLES, MARSHALL and CHARLES L. WELTNER, JJ., concur.

CLARKE, J., not participating.

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Southwest Health and Wellness, L.L.C. v. Work
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • November 29, 2006
    ...must be considered. A voluntary dismissal under OCGA § 9-11-41(a) is a matter of right and terminates the action. Page v. Holiday Inns, 245 Ga. 12, 13, 262 S.E.2d 783 (1980). Further, Georgia's Civil Practice Act apparently makes no provision for the reinstatement of an action after dismiss......
  • Claxton v. Adams
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • September 21, 2020
    ...258 S.E.2d 909 (1979) (addressing finality of voluntary dismissal by plaintiff without order of court),2 rev'd by Page v. Holiday Inns , 245 Ga. 12, 262 S.E.2d 783 (1980), vacated by Holiday Inns v. Page , 153 Ga. App. 357, 266 S.E.2d 809 (1980).For the above-stated reasons, we reject Claxt......
  • Collier v. Evans
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • October 8, 1992
    ...is without merit. "A voluntary dismissal under [OCGA § 9-11-41(a) ] is a matter of right and terminates the action." Page v. Holiday Inns, 245 Ga. 12, 13, 262 S.E.2d 783. 1 Further, Georgia's Civil Practice Act " 'apparently makes no provision for the "reinstatement" of an action after dism......
  • Walker v. Bishop, s. 66522
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • November 18, 1983
    ...insofar as Bishop is concerned, no judgment was ever entered in that case, and no issues were ever adjudicated. Cf. Page v. Holiday Inns, 245 Ga. 12, 262 S.E.2d 783 (1980). It follows that the doctrine of res judicata cannot operate to bar his assertion of the malicious arrest claim in this......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT