Savannah Surety Associates, Inc. v. Master
| Decision Date | 03 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 32888,32888 |
| Parties | SAVANNAH SURETY ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. v. Dennis K. MASTER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John B. Miller, Beckmann & John E. Simpson, John M. Tatum, Savannah, for appellants.
Crawford & Erb, Ronald C. Crawford, Robert J. Erb, Savannah, for appellee.
Plaintiff filed a two-count, $2,000,000 damage suit against the defendants alleging that the defendants slandered plaintiff by charging him with criminal conduct and that they wrongfully ousted him as president of the defendant corporation. In their answers the defendants asserted, among others, truth as a defense to the slander count and a counterclaim for sums allegedly due to the corporation.
On notice, the defendants sought to take the plaintiff's oral deposition but plaintiff refused to answer, on grounds of possible self-incrimination, each of the following questions: How did you come to know the individual defendants? What office did you hold in the defendant corporation? When were you employed as president? Were you generally in charge of day to day management of the business? What happened on the day of your alleged discharge? Describe in your own words how the individual defendants ejected you from the premises as alleged in paragraph 7 of your complaint? Did they pick you up and throw you out or did you leave on your own legs? Did the company write life insurance? Did it write casualty insurance? Did it engage in the bail bond business? Did you have an employment agreement with your employer? What salary did you receive? Did you have any income other than your salary? Where did the company do its banking business? Where did you do your banking? To whom did the defendants impute (publish) slander or crime? To each of these questions, among numerous others, the plaintiff replied: "I refuse to answer that question on the ground it may tend to incriminate me" or words to that effect.
The defendants made a motion pursuant to Code Ann. § 81A-137(a) for order compelling answer which the trial court granted. On plaintiff's appeal by certificate for immediate review, the Court of Appeals reversed, noting that a felony indictment based on these events was pending against the plaintiff and holding that the order to answer placed the plaintiff in the dilemma of having to forfeit either his civil claim or criminal defense in order to protect the other, that as long as the criminal case was pending it was oppressive and unduly burdensome to require him to either prejudice his criminal defense or suffer dismissal of his civil case, and that the trial court should have stayed the grant of the motion to compel until the criminal proceeding had ended. Master v. Savannah Surety Associates, Inc., 143 Ga.App. 109, 237 S.E.2d 599 (1977). We granted certiorari.
We note at the outset that a person may invoke the privilege against self-incrimination without reference to whether an indictment or accusation is pending against him. Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2018 (1970). Thus, there is no assurance that plaintiff's right and need to invoke the privilege will cease upon termination of the pending criminal case. If that indictment were "nol prossed" without trial, the plaintiff could still assert the privilege. The dilemma of a plaintiff in a civil suit who needs the privilege against self-incrimination is virtually the same whether or not an indictment is pending.
This case involves a plaintiff who voluntarily filed suit against his former...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Southern Guar. Ins. Co., A98A1543.
...to the defendant's defense by asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege. Id.; Pervis, 901 F.2d at 947; see Savannah Surety Assoc. v. Master, 240 Ga. 438, 439, 241 S.E.2d 192 (1978). The above facts and law support the conclusion that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination di......
-
10-Dix Bldg. Corp. v. McDannel
...of self-incrimination may claim the privilege even though no criminal charges are pending against him (Savannah Surety Associates, Inc. v. Master (1978), 240 Ga. 438, 439, 241 S.E.2d 192) and even if the risk of prosecution is remote (In re Master Key Litigation (9th Cir.1974), 507 F.2d 292......
-
TENET HEALTHCARE v. Louisiana Forum
...as is just, including the imposition of one or more of the sanctions set forth in [OCGA § 9-11-37(b)(2).] Savannah Surety Assoc. v. Master, 240 Ga. 438, 440, 241 S.E.2d 192 ( 1978). A prospective, self-executing order that automatically dismisses a case cannot be issued by a trial court whe......
-
Wehling v. Columbia Broadcasting System
...of self-incrimination, he may claim the privilege though no criminal charges are pending against him, Savannah Sur. Associates, Inc. v. Master, 240 Ga. 438, 439, 241 S.E.2d 192, 193 (1978), and even if the risk of prosecution is remote. In re Master Key Litigation, 507 F.2d 292, 293 (9th Ci......
-
Parallel Proceedings
...1084 (5th Cir. 1979); Guitierrez-Rodriguez v. Cartagena, 882 F.2d 553 (1st Cir. 1989). See also Savannah Surety Assoc., Inc. v. Master, 240 Ga. 438, 241 S.E.2d 192 (1978) (discussing the difference between a plaintiff who initiates the civil suit and then invokes Fifth Amendment privilege a......