Petty v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., s. 20454
| Decision Date | 08 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | 20455,20456,Nos. 20454,s. 20454 |
| Citation | 215 Ga. 66,108 S.E.2d 697 |
| Parties | Betty Jean Stanley PETTY v. COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC. Mary Jane STANLEY, by Next Friend, v. COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC. Gloria June STANLEY, by Next Friend, v. COMPLETE AUTO TRANSIT, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Reuben A. Garland, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
A. Walton Nall, John T. McTier, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
These three cases were transferred to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals in compliance with Code (Ann.), § 2-3708 () after that court was equally divided as to the judgments that should be rendered; Carlisle, Quillian and Nichols, JJ., being for affirmance, and Felton, Gardner and Townsend, JJ., being for reversal. The questions in all three cases are the same and involve the dismissal of motions for new trials and the striking of so-called motions to set aside the verdicts and judgments. All three cases evolve out of the same facts and circumstances. The plaintiffs in error were minors who brought suit by their father as next friend against the defendant in error for personal injuries; and while the jury was out deliberating on another case, which was another action for personal injuries brought by their father, theri attorney who was also their father's attorney negotiated and made an agreement with opposing counsel settling all the cases for the sum of $7,500, that is, $6,000 for the case on trial and $500 for each of the 'next friend' cases. Consent verdicts were prepared and submitted to the jury and thereafter approved in open court after investigation by the trial judge, the same reciting that 'all parties being present, including the minors.' Judgment was then entered against the defendant in each case.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs in error employed another attorney, who filed motions for new trial without rule nisi attached, since the trial judge refused to sign the rules on the grounds the cases had been settled. Copies of the motions for new trial were mailed to opposing counsel, and counsel for the plaintiffs in error certified that he had served counsel for the opposing party by mailing copies to him. After 30 days and after the term, counsel also filed papers in each case designated 'Motion to Set Aside Verdict and Judgment,' which in substance claims mistake and misunderstanding on the part of the father, who was present in open court, in failing to object to the consent verdicts and also that the attorney was mistaken in thinking he had authority to settle the cases. Motions to dismiss the motions for new trials and motions to strike the motions to set the verdicts and judgments aside were filed, and after a hearing sustained. The exceptions are to these judgments. Held:
1. A judgment rendered with consent of counsel is binding on the client unless such consent was in violation of express directions given by the client to the attorney and known to the adverse party or his attorney, or unless there was otherwise fraud or collusion on the part of counsel so consenting, participated in by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatcher v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...150 S.E. 76; Elliott v. Elliott, 184 Ga. 417, 191 S.E. 465; Howell v. Howell, 188 Ga. 803, 4 S.E.2d 835; Petty v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., 215 Ga. 66(1), 108 S.E.2d 697; Rooke v. Day, 46 Ga.App. 379(1), 167 S.E. 3. The general demurrers filed April 30. These demurrers, all general, were......
-
King v. King, A91A0681
...directions of the client which are known by the other party or his attorney, or is fraudulent or collusive. Petty v. Complete Auto Transit, 215 Ga. 66, 67(1), 108 S.E.2d 697 (1959) and cits. Where the other party or his attorney lacks such knowledge, and the actions of counsel within his ap......
-
Pembroke State Bank v. Warnell
...944, 945; 7 Am.Jur.2d § 156; 7A CJS § 214. A conclusion to the contrary in some cases was without foundation. See Petty v. Complete Auto Transit, 215 Ga. 66(1), 108 S.E.2d 697, relying on Reece v. McCormack, 188 Ga. 665, 668, 4 S.E.2d 575; but see the cases relied on by Reece. The cases rel......
-
Lewis v. Uselton
...considering the obvious parameters noted in King v. King, 199 Ga.App. 496, 499(4), 405 S.E.2d 319 as held in Petty v. Complete Auto Transit, 215 Ga. 66, 67(1), 108 S.E.2d 697. In affidavit to his motion for summary judgment, appellant averred: "At no time have I ever stated to [Mr. and Mrs.......