Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

BRAMBLETT v. WHITFIELD FINANCE COMPANY.

BELL, Chief Judge.

Summary judgment was granted plaintiff in this suit on a promissory note to recover a balance due of $2,898.20, plus attorney fees and costs.

Defendant answered the complaint and denied any indebtedness. Code Ann. § 25-301 et seq. (Ga. L. 1955, pp. 431, 432). Thereafter, plaintiff served its request for admissions on defendant under CPA § 36 (Code Ann. § 81A-136), to which defendant did not reply within 30 days after service. There being no objection made to the request and no motion made for permission to file an answer late, nor to withdraw the admissions generated by the failure to answer, the matter contained in the request has been admitted, and is binding upon the defendant. CPA § 36 (a), supra; Strickland v. C S Nat. Bank, 137 Ga. App. 538, 540 ( 224 S.E.2d 504). Thus defendant has admitted the whole case as he admitted the validity of the debt; the balance due and owing; and the genuineness of the note; and an indebtedness to plaintiff in the amount of $2,898.20, plus attorney fees and court costs. Summary judgment was appropriately granted as there remains no material issue of fact. Walker Enterprises, Inc. v. Mullis, 124 Ga. App. 305 ( 183 S.E.2d 534).

Judgment affirmed. McMurray and Smith, JJ., concur.

SUBMITTED OCTOBER 3, 1977 — DECIDED NOVEMBER 14, 1977.
Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

BRAMBLETT v. WHITFIELD FINANCE COMPANY
(Nov 14, 1977)