Van Keuren v. Loomis
| Decision Date | 22 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 47529,No. 2,47529,2 |
| Citation | 128 Ga.App. 136,195 S.E.2d 776 |
| Parties | Floyd D. VAN KEUREN v. John A. LOOMIS et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Dunaway, Shelfer, Haas & Newberry, William S. Shelfer, Sr., William S. Shelfer, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Neely, Freeman & Hawkins, Edgar A. Neely, Jr., Atlanta, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
In an action in the Superior Court of DeKalb County against alleged joint tort-feasors, a motion to strike certain portions of the petition was made by the appellant-defendant. On December 30, 1971, at a hearing had thereon, the trial judge ordered certain portions of the petition stricken and deleted by plaintiff recasting his petition, and further ordered 'the plaintiff is hereby allowed 15 days from this date to recast his petition as ordered, and in default, thereof, the plaintiff's complaint will stand dismissed as to the defendant, Floyd D. Van Keuren.' On May 5, 1972, plaintiff filed an amendment to his complaint together with a motion for reconsideration of, and a revocation of, and interpretation of, the order of December 30, 1971, and for allowance of his amendment. At the hearing on this motion, it appeared that the trial judge had inadvertently ordered the petition dismissed when he intended to strike only the portions attacked by the motion to strike, and he, for this reason, sustained the motion and allowed the amendment to the petition. (Tr. pp. 6, 7, 8, 13, 22, 24, 27 and 28.) The appellant entered his appeal from this order.
1. A trial judge may amend or correct an order inadvertently entered. Phillips v. Wait, 105 Ga. 848(2), 32 S.E.
647. It has long been the rule that a court has plenary control of its judgments, orders, and decrees during the term at which they are rendered, and may amend, correct, modify, or supplement them, for cause appearing, or may, to promote justice, revise, supersede, revoke, or vacate them as may in his discretion seem necessary. McCandless v. Conley, 115 Ga. 48, 50, 41 S.E. 256. While this power was, at the time of these decisions, exercisable only during the term at which entered, Section 6(c) of the Civil Practice Act enacted in 1966 (Ga.L.1966, pp. 609, 617; Code Ann. § 81A-106(c)) provides: The trial judge here, therefore, in the absence of a final judgment in the case, had the power to correct an inadvertent error in the drafting of the order dismissing one of the parties defendant and this he could have done on his own motion. Code § 81-1202. It is immaterial, therefore, that he may have been in error in granting the motion to set aside the judgment of dismissal (Golden Star, Inc. v. Broyles Ins. Agency, Inc., 118...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pledger v. State
...393, 394(1), 333 S.E.2d 425 (1985); Bradley v. Tattnall Bank, 170 Ga.App. 821, 823(1), 318 S.E.2d 657 (1984); Van Keuren v. Loomis, 128 Ga.App. 136(1), 195 S.E.2d 776 (1973). The power of the court during, but not beyond, the term is an inherent one, East Side Lumber, etc., Co. v. Barfield,......
-
Lott v. Arrington & Hollowell, PC, No. A02A1068
...at 522(1), 347 S.E.2d 257; see Hubbert v. Williams, 175 Ga.App. 393, 394-395(1), 333 S.E.2d 425 (1985); Van Keuren v. Loomis, 128 Ga.App. 136-137(1), 195 S.E.2d 776 (1973). The December 2000 order here was not a final judgment but was interlocutory. By its own terms, the judgment was not fi......
-
Union Circulation Co., Inc. v. Trust Co. Bank
...before it." Our holding in this case explains the background for this statute and is in consonance with it. See Van Keuren v. Loomis, 128 Ga.App. 136, 137, 195 S.E.2d 776. The trial court did not err in reconsidering his earlier interlocutory ruling, even though the term had passed, so long......
-
Hunt v. Household Finance Corp., 52203
...omission is obvious on the face of the record.' In that case there was a mutual mistake admitted by both parties. In Van Keuren v. Loomis, 128 Ga.App. 136(1), 195 S.E.2d 776 the court, having inadvertently struck the entire petition when his intention was only to dismiss one of the parties ......