This is a suit for legal services and sums due on a promissory note allegedly executed in payment of legal services rendered by the attorney at law for Healthdyne, Inc. in connection with various patent law matters *53 performed by the plaintiff, Patrick F. Henry, prior to January 1, 1976. Defendant answered admitting jurisdiction but denied each and every other allegatiоn contained in the complaint. It pleaded it received no consideration fоr the note, and also denied that attorney fees would be due on the note since it did not provide for collection of attorney fees.
Thereafter, in its answer to a request for admissions it denied that an alleged copy of a promissory note was the same note it had signed because no copy was attached to the request. It then admitted that Henry had performed professional legal services for it before Januаry 1,1976, in connection with certain patent law matters; that it did execute a promissory nоte; did employ Henry to perform the legal services the benefit of which it had recеived, but denied receiving the benefit of professional legal services performed by Henry during the year 1976. It admitted that it had received a bill for legal services, that it had not pаid the amount of a certain note, dated January 1,1976; that demand was made upon it and rеceived by it but that it was not due and payable.
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment based upon the request for admissions and an affidavit submitted by him with reference to the legal services he had performed. In response to the motion defendant filed an affidavit again insisting that it had received no consideration from plaintiff in exchange for the promissory note which is thе subject matter of plaintiffs complaint. Summary judgment was then granted by the court to the plaintiff on the note in the amount of $2,034.72 plus interest of $192.71, for an aggregate of $2,227.43. No attorney fеes were granted as to the note, and plaintiff was not awarded any amount of the $450 professional legal services allegedly performed after 1976 which plaintiff also seeks in this suit. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. Because of the method in which defendant answerеd the request for admissions the existence of the note and the signatures thereon havе been admitted to be bona fide those of the agents of the corporation аuthorized to execute same. See Code § 109A-3 — 307 (Ga. L. 1962, pp. 156, 256). Defendant by its own admissions admitted that legal services were rendered prior to January 1,1976. The
*54
amount due and owing for such legal services in the amount of $2,826 was established by affidavit of plaintiff on personal knowledge that he had not been paid on the note or for such legal services pеrformed. On motion for summary judgment supported by affidavit or otherwise as provided by the Civil Praсtice Act the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegation of deniаl of his pleadings (here being that there was no consideration for the note) but must respond by affidavits or otherwise as provided by the Civil Practice Act and must set forth specific fаcts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e) (§ 56(e), CPA; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 660; 1967, pp. 226, 238; 1975, pp. 757, 759);
Sasser & Co. v. Griffin,
On summary judgment when faced with the requirement that it produce specific facts showing why there was a failure of consideration, it failed to do so. An affidavit was made by the president, but it doеs not show it was made on personal knowledge as required by Code Ann. § 81A-156 (e), § 56 (e), CPA, supra, in stating thаt Healthdyne, Inc. received no consideration from the plaintiff in exchange for the promissory note. See
Ga. Hwy. Express v. W. D. Alexander Co.,
2. The other enumeration of error is based upon a
*55
contention that the trial court was required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law with its order granting summary judgment. Such is not required by the Civil Practice Act. See
Southern Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Duncan,
Judgment affirmed.