lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
HORN v. TERMINAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, INC.
HORN v. FIREMANS FUND INSURANCE COMPANY.
46986.
46987.
HALL, Presiding Judge.
Action for damages. Douglas Superior Court. Before Judge Emeritus Foster.
Defendant in two negligence actions appeals from the denial of his motions for summary judgment on res judicata grounds. The record shows that the two plaintiffs in the separate actions on appeal here were originally among four plaintiffs in an earlier filed action based on the same occurrence. In this action, defendant made motions to dismiss, to strike certain claims and for a more definite statement as to others. These motions affected only the two plaintiffs here. The trial court sustained the motions, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend within 15 days, and further providing that if they failed to amend, the complaint would stand dismissed as to them. The complaints were not amended nor was any other action taken with respect to this order. Plaintiffs subsequently filed these present suits.
The pleadings in the original suit show that it is a multiparty, multi-claim action. Therefore, the finality of any order or decision made in the case is governed. by Code Ann. 81A-154 (b). This rule provides that in the absence of an express determination by the court that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment, no order or decision which adjudicates with respect to fewer than all the claims or all the parties is final. Such an order or decision is subject to revision at any time before final judgment on all claims and parties. See also Cook v. Peeples, 227 Ga. 473 (181 SE2d 375); Davis v. Roper, 119 Ga. App. 442 (167 SE2d 685).
The record here, which the clerk has certified as entire, discloses no judgment against the plaintiffs meeting the requirements of Rule 54 (b). The trial court did not err in denying the motions for summary judgment.
A. Hugh Leatherwood, Robert J. James, for appellees.
Dunaway, Shelfer, Haas & Newberry, Hugh F. Newberry, L. Robert Lake, for appellant.
SUBMITTED MARCH 2, 1972 -- DECIDED APRIL 6, 1972 -- REHEARING DENIED APRIL 28, 1972.
Friday May 22 14:46 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com