TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gilham v. STAMM & COMPANY, INC.

Gilham v. Stamm & Co., 162 S.E.2d 248 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 6, 1968
Docket
No. 43526
Judges
Eberhardt, Felton, Whitman
Citations
162 S.E.2d 248117 Ga. App. 8461968 Ga. App. LEXIS 1260
Cited by 14 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Eberhardt

Eberhardt, Judge.

A default judgment rendered in a suit on account is subject to a motion to set aside under the Civil Practice Act § 60 (d)

(Code Ann.

§ 81A-160 (d)) at the in *847 stance of an individual defendant sued jointly with a corporate defendant where the sworn itemized statement of the account attached to the complaint affirmatively shows that the items and services were sold and delivered to the corporate defendant only and that no claim in fact exists against the individual defendant from whom recovery is sought for the indebtedness of the corporation — “a clear case of non-liability.”

Keith v. Darby, 104 Ga. App. 624, 626 ( 122 SE2d 463 ). The exhibits showing all items to have been charged to the corporate defendant must control over the general allegation in the petition that the “defendants are indebted to plaintiff” in a stated amount.

Saldivia v. Saldivia, 218 Ga. 98 ( 126 SE2d 615 );

Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 91 Ga. App. 608 (4) ( 86 SE2d 632 ). Since this is a default judgment there is no presumption that there was proof before the court that would have authorized a finding of liability on the account as to Gilham, the individual.

Bayne v. Sun Finance Co. No. 1, 114 Ga. App. 27 (5) ( 150 SE2d 311 ). Consequently, as to him the judgment must be set aside.

Dell v. Kugel, 99 Ga. App. 551 (2) ( 109 SE2d 532 ).

Argued March 4, 1968 Decided June 6, 1968.

Johnston & McCarter, John M. McCarter, for appellant.

Lipshutz, Macey, Zusmann & Sikes, Morris Macey, David Butler, for appellee.

Judgment reversed.

Felton, C. J., and Whitman, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1969: 11970: 21971: 11972: 11975: 11977: 21984: 11986: 11991: 21993: 12025: 119692026peak 1970 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Townsend220 S.E.2d 14 (Ga. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. Fudge v. Weissinger411 S.E.2d 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
  3. First Baptist Church v. King430 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
  4. National Advertising Company v. NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE & REALTY COMPANY, INC.177 S.E.2d 510 (Ga. Ct. App. 1970)
  5. Escambia Chemical Corp. v. Rocker184 S.E.2d 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
  6. Martin v. Pierce232 S.E.2d 170 (Ga. Ct. App. 1977)

Most recent

  1. Wilson Tomala v. Rick HarrisNo. A24A1456 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2025)
  2. First Baptist Church v. King430 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993)
  3. S. J. Kilpatrick Construction Co. v. Sizemore410 S.E.2d 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
  4. Fudge v. Weissinger411 S.E.2d 62 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991)
  5. OLDEN CAMERA & LENS COMPANY, INC. v. White347 S.E.2d 696 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)
  6. Power v. Mobley316 S.E.2d 580 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Dell v. Kugel, 109 S.E.2d 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 1959) 20
Williams v. Appliances, Inc., 86 S.E.2d 632 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955) 18
Bayne v. Sun Fin. Co., 150 S.E.2d 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966) 12
Keith v. Darby, 122 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961) 11
Saldivia v. Saldivia, 126 S.E.2d 615 (Ga. 1962) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list