Strother v. C. & S. Nat. Bank
| Decision Date | 07 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 56230,56230 |
| Citation | 147 Ga.App. 140,248 S.E.2d 204 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STROTHER et al. v. C. & S. NATIONAL BANK. |
Scheer & Elsner, William A. Gray, Robert A. Elsner, Atlanta, for appellants.
McClain, Mellen, Bowling & Hickman, James W. Culbreth, A. O. Bracey, III, Atlanta, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the defendants from an order of the trial court dismissing the main appeal on motion of the plaintiff. The court had granted judgment to the plaintiff in two confirmation cases. The defendants filed a timely notice of appeal in each of these cases on December 1, 1977. The defendants ordered a transcript of the hearings in the middle of December and received a copy January 30, 1978. However, no transcript was filed in the superior court, and no request for an extension of time in which to file the transcript was sought by the defendants. On February 10, 1978, 71 days from the filing of the original notice of appeal, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the appeals.
A hearing on the motion was held March 10, 1978. At the hearing, the court questioned defense counsel as to why he had never requested an order for an extension of time. The attorney responded that his understanding of the law was that extensions of time were no longer necessary as long as the party prosecuting the appeal was not intentionally causing delay. Defendants' counsel further testified that after requesting and receiving a copy of the transcript, he assumed that the court reporter would also file one with the court, as had been his experience in other courts. The trial judge stated at the hearing, The court stated in its order that the defendants' appeal was dismissed in accordance with Code Ann. § 6-809. Held :
Code Ann. § 6-809(b) provides in part that ". . . the trial court may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, order that the appeal be dismissed where there has been an unreasonable delay in the filing of such transcript and it is shown that the delay was inexcusable and was caused by such party . . ." In this case, the order is silent as to the reasons for dismissal. The statements of the trial judge at the hearing indicate that he believed the defendants' failure either to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RR v. DEC ASSOC.
...260 Ga. 115, 390 S.E.2d 576 (1990); Corbin v. First Nat. Bank, etc., 151 Ga.App. 33, 258 S.E.2d 697 (1979); Strother v. C & S Nat. Bank, 147 Ga.App. 140, 248 S.E.2d 204 (1978). Case No. 1. DEC's first enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in not finding the 1971 agreement a val......
-
Cook v. McNamee
...party.' OCGA § 5-6-48(c). In passing upon these issues the trial court must exercise its discretion, Strother v. C & S Nat. Bank, 147 Ga.App. 140, 141, 248 S.E.2d 204 (1978), but only if the movant has shown: (1) that the delay in filing was unreasonable; (2) that it was inexcusable; and (3......
-
Van Diviere v. Delta Airlines, Inc.
...party." OCGA § 5-6-48(c). In passing upon these issues the trial court must exercise its discretion, Strother v. C & S Nat. Bank, 147 Ga.App. 140, 141, 248 S.E.2d 204 (1978), but only if the movant has shown: (1) that the delay in filing was unreasonable; (2) that it was inexcusable; and (3......
-
Hunt v. Lee
...be permissible. OCGA § 5-6-41(f). OCGA § 5-6-48(c) requires an exercise of discretion by the trial court. Strother v. C. & S. Nat. Bank, 147 Ga.App. 140, 141, 248 S.E.2d 204 (1978). The determination of unreasonable and inexcusable delay by the appealing party is a fact issue for the court.......