From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Covil v. Stansell

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 23, 1966
147 S.E.2d 479 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)

Opinion

41666.

ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1966.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 23, 1966.

Action for damages. DeKalb Superior Court. Before Judge Hubert.

Smith, Ringel, Martin Lowe, Ralph H. Witt, for appellants.

Crespi Mildon, Joseph S. Crespi, for appellees.


1. The Act of 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., p. 342; Code Ann. § 3-512), provides for the dismissal of all cases wherein no order of continuance or otherwise is entered for a period of five years, and such Act is mandatory. See Swint v. Smith, 219 Ga. 532 ( 134 S.E.2d 595).

2. A dismissal under the Act of 1953, supra, is not a dismissal deciding the merits of the plaintiffs case so as to bar another suit upon the same cause of action. City of Chamblee v. Village of North Atlanta, 217 Ga. 517 ( 123 S.E.2d 663).

3. Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Clark v. Newsome, 180 Ga. 97 ( 178 S.E. 386), a plaintiff who has had his action dismissed other than on the merits may refile within six months under Code § 3-808 where the original action was not barred by the statute of limitation.

4. The plaintiff's petition in the present case was not subject to defendant's general demurrer which alleged that the refiling of the action was barred by the statute of limitation.

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

ARGUED JANUARY 5, 1966 — DECIDED FEBRUARY 23, 1966.


Summaries of

Covil v. Stansell

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 23, 1966
147 S.E.2d 479 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
Case details for

Covil v. Stansell

Case Details

Full title:COVIL et al. v. STANSELL et al

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 23, 1966

Citations

147 S.E.2d 479 (Ga. Ct. App. 1966)
147 S.E.2d 479

Citing Cases

Schaffer v. City of Atlanta

2. "Under the decision of the Supreme Court in Clark v. Newsome, 180 Ga. 97 ( 178 S.E. 386), a plaintiff who…

Stone v. Green

First of all, an automatic dismissal is not on the merits and thus is "without prejudice." Covil v. Stansell,…