Tankersley v. Security Nat. Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45393,No. 3,45393,3 |
| Citation | 122 Ga.App. 129,176 S.E.2d 274 |
| Parties | James G. TANKERSLEY v. SECURITY NATIONAL CORPORATION |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Palmour & Palmour, James E. Palmour, III, Gainesville, for appellant.
Stow, Garvin & Glenn, James A. Glenn, Jr., Gainesville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This is a summary judgment based on a suit on a note seeking the principal, interest and attorney's fees upon the statutory notice and demand therefor. The suit is brought by the subsidiary corporation of an insurance company by reason of the unconditional endorsement of the note by the agent of the insurance company, as payee, to the subsidiary corporation. The subsidiary corporation is not authorized to do business in the State of Georgia. The note is for 5 years from February 15, 1967, secured by a policy of insurance which 'make(s) this note due and payable at once notwithstanding the original due date hereinabove set forth' upon the failure of the maker to pay or cause to be paid any premium due thereafter on the life insurance policy there assigned. The defendant answered, denying the material allegations of the plaintiff's complaint, averring that he is not indebted to the plaintiff whatsoever, and defended upon the ground that the plaintiff was a foreign corporation transacting business in Georgia without a certificate of authority, in violation of the laws of the State of Georgia which would prevent it maintaining this suit; and also filed a counterclaim alleging the plaintiff wilfully and maliciously instituted this action against him, knowing that he was not indebted in any sum whatsoever. Both parties moved for summary judgment based upon admissions, affidavits and interrogatories therein filed. The defendant also requested that the president of the plaintiff corporation be required to come to Georgia from the State of Oklahoma for the purpose of taking his deposition 'by way of cross-examination in behalf of defendant * * * for the purpose of discovery and impeachment, and said deposition will be used at the trial of said cause as evidence.' The lower court quashed defendant's notice to take depositions and request for admissions as irrelevant and without merit, and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him interest and attorneys' fees as requested. The appeal is from the granting of the motion for summary judgment. Held:
1. The court did not error in quashing defendant's request for admissions and notice to take the deposition of the president of the plaintiff corporation since the information therein sought was already admitted or had already been secured by the use of interrogatories, and if any further information was needed it could be secured by further interrogatories.
2. Under Georgia Laws 1968, pp. 565-707, 708, 709, 722 (new Georgia Business Corporation Code §§ 22-1401, 22-1402, 22-1421; Code Ann. §§ 22-1401, 22-1402, 22-1421), a foreign corporation shall have the right to maintain a suit and make loans and create or acquire evidence of debt in this State without being considered as transacting business in this State, although if it is found to be transacting business in this State without a certificate of authority it shall not 'be permitted to maintain any action, suit or proceeding in any court of this State.' Since the subsidiary corporation was here suing on a note it received in making a loan to the agent of an insurance company of which it was a subsidiary this suit could be maintained.
3. Code §§ 81-405 and 81-701 involving unconditional contracts in writing and requiring pleas of non est...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Elec. Credit Corp. v. Brooks
...200 S.E.2d 909 (1973); Aultman v. T. F. Taylor Fertilizer Works, 125 Ga.App. 398, 188 S.E.2d 157 (1972); Tankersley v. Security Nat. Corp., 122 Ga.App. 129, 176 S.E.2d 274 (1970); Newby v. Armour Agricultural Chem. Corp., 119 Ga.App. 650, 168 S.E.2d 652 (1969); Franco v. Bank of Forest Park......
-
Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, Inc., 54104
...pleaded, a general denial being sufficient. Morgan v. White, 121 Ga.App. 794(2), 175 S.E.2d 878 (1970); Tankersley v. Security Nat'l Corp., 122 Ga.App. 129, 130(3), 176 S.E.2d 274 (1970). Paragraph 2 of the answer, which is a general denial, as well as the specific denials of paragraph 1, w......
-
LDH Properties, Inc. v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of New York
...was required to obtain a certificate of authority as a condition precedent to bringing this suit. See Tankersley v. Security National Corp., 122 Ga.App. 129, 130, 176 S.E.2d 274 (1970). For the foregoing reasons, the award of summary judgment to the appellee is Judgment affirmed. QUILLIAN, ......
-
Spurlock v. Commercial Banking Co.
...to the allegations of the defendant's counterclaim was sufficient to raise the defense of non est factum. Tankersley v. Security Nat. Corp., 122 Ga.App. 129, 130(3), 176 S.E.2d 274; Tucker v. Chung Studio of Karate, 142 Ga.App. 818(2), 237 S.E.2d 223. That being true, the plaintiff did not ......