From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singleton v. Rary

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 7, 1969
167 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)

Opinion

44317, 44318.

ARGUED MARCH 4, 1969.

DECIDED APRIL 7, 1969. REHEARING DENIED APRIL 21, 1969.

Action on note. DeKalb Civil and Criminal Court. Before Judge Mitchell.

Armstrong Fuller, Hilton M. Fuller, Jr., for appellants.

E. T. Hendon, Jr., for appellee.


1. Plaintiffs took these appeals from judgments for defendant in two suits on promissory notes. This is the second appearance of the cases in this court. See Singleton v. Rary, 116 Ga. App. 476 (3) ( 157 S.E.2d 645), where we held as follows: "The defendant's answer simply denied all paragraphs of the petition and plaintiff moved to strike or dismiss the answer since it amounted to no more than a plea of the general issue against an unconditional contract in writing. Other than the denial of the giving of the notice to bind the defendant for the payment of attorney's fees the answer was a plea of the general issue, setting up no legal defense, and could not be amended to set up a defense to the unconditional part of the contract. Except as to the denial of the notice for attorney's fees, the answer should have been stricken." That holding fixed as the law of the case that defendant's answer was not amendable to set up a defense to the unconditional part of the contract. While the Civil Practice Act was not applied on the former appearance of the case, the Act does not require a different result when applied here. See Code Ann. § 81A-160 (h) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 664, as amended by Ga. L. 1967, pp. 226, 239); Medlock v. Allison, 224 Ga. 648, 649 ( 164 S.E.2d 112). Thus the trial court erred in denying each plaintiff's motion to strike the amendment filed by defendant after our previous decision.

2. The only issuable defense on the trial was defendant's denial that plaintiffs gave the alleged notice required by Code Ann. § 20-506 as a condition precedent to collection of attorney's fees as provided for in the notes sued on. The evidence established without contradiction that the requisite notice was given. It was therefore error to deny plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict.

Judgment reversed. Eberhardt and Deen, JJ., concur.

ARGUED MARCH 4, 1969 — DECIDED APRIL 7, 1969 — REHEARING DENIED APRIL 21, 1969 — CERT. APPLIED FOR.


Summaries of

Singleton v. Rary

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Apr 7, 1969
167 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)
Case details for

Singleton v. Rary

Case Details

Full title:SINGLETON, by Next Friend v. RARY (two cases)

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Apr 7, 1969

Citations

167 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. Ct. App. 1969)
167 S.E.2d 740

Citing Cases

Morgan v. White

However, in this decision we pretermit the question as to the effect of the Georgia Civil Practice Act on the…

Master Mortgage v. Craven

Code Ann. § 81A-160 (h). See also Medlock v. Allison, 224 Ga. 648, 649 ( 164 S.E.2d 112); Singleton v. Rary,…