From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nevels v. Detroiter Mobile Homes

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 22, 1971
183 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)

Opinion

46035.

ARGUED MARCH 1, 1971.

DECIDED JUNE 22, 1971.

Action for damages. Dougherty Superior Court. Before Judge Kelley.

Lewis O. Nevels, for appellant.

Perry, Walters, Langstaff, Lippitt Campbell, Evans J. Plowden, Jr., for appellees.


The appellant as administrator filed suit on August 7, 1970, for damages arising out of an alleged malicious arrest and prosecution of the intestate. The warrant was dismissed on November 3, 1967. The administrator was appointed on March 4, 1968. The trial judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the case was barred by the statute of limitation. Appellant contends that the case was saved by the renewal statute as a prior suit had been brought in federal district court and there dismissed. Held:

1. The cause alleged in the complaint is of the type that is subject to the two-year statute of limitation. Code Ann. § 3-1004. McCullough v. Atlantic Refining Co., 50 Ga. App. 237 (1) ( 177 S.E. 601).

2. Even if a suit for the same cause had previously been filed in a federal district court and there dismissed, the statute of limitation is not tolled by the Georgia renewal statute ( Code Ann. § 3-808) as the latter is not applicable to suits commenced in federal courts. Anderson v. Southern Bell Tel. c. Co., 108 Ga. App. 314 ( 132 S.E.2d 820). See Lillibridge v. Riley, 316 F.2d 232.

Judgment affirmed. Pannell and Deen, JJ., concur.

ARGUED MARCH 1, 1971 — DECIDED JUNE 22, 1971.


Summaries of

Nevels v. Detroiter Mobile Homes

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jun 22, 1971
183 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
Case details for

Nevels v. Detroiter Mobile Homes

Case Details

Full title:NEVELS v. DETROITER MOBILE HOMES et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Jun 22, 1971

Citations

183 S.E.2d 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
124 Ga. App. 112

Citing Cases

Lamb v. U.S.

While the act of 1856 and the Code both leave out the words "court of this state," we do not think the…

Henson v. Columbus Bank Trust Co.

While the act of 1856 and the code both leave out the words `courts of this State,' we do not think the…