Richmond Concrete Products Co. v. Ward, s. 36569

• Citation: 98 S.E.2d 130,95 Ga.App. 419
• Decision Date: 02 April 1957
• Docket Number: Nos. 36569,36570,No. 1,s. 36569,1
• Parties: RICHOMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc. v. Mrs. O. A. WARD. Mrs. O. A. WARD. v. RICHMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)

Page 130

98 S.E.2d 130

95 Ga.App. 419

RICHOMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc. v. Mrs. O. A. WARD.

Mrs. O. A. WARD. v. RICHMOND CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Inc.

Nos. 36569, 36570.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

April 2, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

The trial court erred in sustaining the objections to the request for interrogatories, and thereafter in denying the amended motion for new trial filed by Richmond Concrete Products Company, Inc.

Mrs. Ocie Anderson Ward filed an action in the Superior Court of McDuffie County, Georgia, against Richmond Concrete Products Company, Inc., and Albert L. Gay to recover for injuries sustained as the result of a concrete block falling off a truck owned by the defendant Gay, on which he was hauling concrete blocks under contract for the defendant corporation. It was alleged that the automobile being driven by the plaintiff struck the concrete block which fell off the truck when it landed in front of her. On the trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff which was made the judgment of the trial court. The defendant corporation filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds which it later amended so as to assign error on several excerpts from the charge. The court denied the defendant corporation's motion for new trial, and to this judgment it excepts.

The plaintiff filed a cross-bill of exceptions in which she assigns error on several judgments adverse to her and in which she contends that a judgment affirming the verdict of the jury was demanded.

Fulcher, Fulcher & Hagler, Augusta, Stevens & Stevens, Thomson, for plaintiff in error.

George W. Fryhofer, Waynesboro, Randall Evans, Jr., Jack D. Evans, Thomson, for defendant in error.

NICHOLS, Judge.

1. In the cross-bill of exceptions error is assigned on the sustaining of certain objections by the defendant to interrogatories for discovery filed by the plaintiff. When this case was before the Supreme Court (Richmond Concrete Products Co. v. Ward, 212 Ga. 773, 95 S.E.2d 677), it was held that ground 2 of these objections, which was sustained, did not raise a constitutional question, and accordingly it must be held that the trial court erred in sustaining this ground of the objections to the interrogatories for discovery.

The other objection which was sustained by the trial court was that the request for interrogatories did not comply with the law in regard thereto. In the order sustaining this ground of objection the trial court stated that the objection to the interrogatories was sustained because it was merely addressed to the president of the defendant corporation and did not give his name.

In Hatcher & Co. v. First National Bank of Mechanicsburg, 79 Ga. 538, 5 S.E. 127, decided by the Supreme Court on February 6, 1888, it was held that a request for interrogatories addressed merely to the president and cashier of a corporation, without naming them, was insufficient. In 1889 the General Assembly amended that chapter of the Code dealing with interrogatories so as to definitely provide that they would apply to corporations and to further provide that they should be directed to either the president, secretary or treasurer or other officer or agent of the corporation. There is no requirement by this act, which was enacted subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hatcher & Co. v. First National Bank of Mechanicsburg, supra, that the president, secretary or treasurer of a corporation must be specifically named. Although any other officer or agent of the corporation would necessarily have to be named with more description than just his title, this requirement would not apply to the president, secretary, or treasurer inasmuch as there would only be one of each of these named officers of the corporation. The request for interrogatories is addressed to the corporation and not to the individual who happens to be an officer to the corporation. Therefore, in the present case where the request was addressed to the president of the corporation as required by the Act of 1889 (Code, § 38-1202), the judgment of the trial court in sustaining the objections to the request for interrogatories on this ground was error.

2. The exception of the plaintiff to the refusal of the trial court to dismiss the motion for new trial rather than to grant a continuance until a later date, as requested by the defendant, is without merit inasmuch as it does not appear that the trial cour...