*1 uninsured, 23,1973, plaintiff was without negligence on the of the security creditor. The verdict was unauthorized. Evans, J, Stolz, J., specially. concurs
Argued January 1975.
Patterson, Franklin, Parks, Parks & Bernard Len- Jackson, wood A. for appellants. Crichton,
G. T. appellee. Judge, concurring specially. Stolz, I concur the judgment of the majority because there is no evidence the record to substantiate the trial judge’s finding the loss on August occurred 12, 1972, within the policy period contended by the complaint allegation The made an to that effect. The answer defendant was without knowledge or information sufficient form belief as thereof, to the truth and neither admitted nor denied same. The date the plaintiffs loss occurred is not information which is particularly within the defendant’s knowledge so make this type answer an ad- Jewell, D. mission. See J. Hancock, Inc. v. (5) (175 The was required thus
prove this absolutely her allegation essential com- plaint and do so.
49580. RAMSEY et al. v. THOMAS. Smart-alecks "Rehearing sometimes smirkingly say waste; motions are a even judges don’t read them.” Successful appellate advocates contradict such assertion. The instant appeal confirmation motions are considered detail closely because judges recognize they subject to the affliction call- ed "judicial astigmatism,” may which be both visual mental. we rendered this case of a grant the trial court’s to defendant
affirming
This decision was based
judgment.
that defendant "acted
bad
allegation
*2
faith,
maliciously
and
the
injured
has wilfully
and
plus
and the defendant’s acts constitute fraud”
plaintiffs,
for punitive damages
damnum clause
a claim
ad
fees which would be allowable
an
attorney
opinion pointed out that
for fraud.
first
the
action
Our
premised
assignment
an
could not
upon
action
a cause of action for fraud was not
pursued because
85-1805).
(Code
assignable
By rehearing motion
§
our "astig-
to our attention
called
have
appellants
Court,
this
"In
before
argument
oral
thusly:
matism”
agreed
open
they
the Plaintiffs
action for fraud
of
that a cause of
the
law
proposition
with
(P. 8).
this "mentally
.”
With
assigned.
.
could not be
have withdrawn
correction,” we
optical
this case from another
reconsidered
opinion and have
doing
so
of contract.
alleged
breach
approach:
the evidence
we must reverse because
have concluded
genuine
a
issue of material
fact.
discloses the existence of
the
this
a contract
for
sale
action was
The basis
made
David N.
realty
certain
between
purchase
of
Nevins as purchaser.
and James N.
Thomas as seller
plaintiffs.
contract
to the
Defendant
assigned this
Nevins
upon
the
the land
defended
was not the sole owner of
he
signed
he
the contract
that at
the time
basis
not
become
document was
agreed
Nevins had
the
had
entered
their
until his co-owners
also
regard,
approval. See
to show their
signatures
210).
(209
Grant,
SE2d
Abernathy v.
891); Assn., Smith v. Sandersville Prod. Credit Ga. 65 Bell, J., Quillian, J., C. *3 concurs in the judgment only.
Argued September January 7, 1974 1975 Rehearing denied 1975 Bovis, Burch,
Van Gerpen & John appellants. V. McClain, Mellen, Hickman, Bowling & Arthur Poole, Gregory, William M. for appellee. Rehearing.
On Motion for In an eloquent brief filed support appellee’s able rehearing emphasizes counsel that we foregoing opinion recognize "the evidentiary requirement established Chandler v. 697).” Gately, 119 513 Headnote at page of that is opinion quoted supplemented by argument.
Having from observed briefs in other appeals filed attorneys have continued to cite the principle here, enunciated in Headnote as is done we deem appropriate it point out that our 78) included 124 Ga. Hayes,
v. cases which the among seven supra, Gately, v. Chandler considered as longer no "can opinion correctly This conclusion was court.” on this authority question our certified answer from the drawn in Burnette Ford v. Court Supreme by furnished to adhere to compelled Accordingly, therefore, motion is and, rehearing foregoing denied. denied.
Motion for INTERNATIONAL METAL WORKERS 49788. SHEET CARTER et al. ASSOCIATION METAL WORKERS SHEET 49789. LOCAL et al. ASSOCIATION CARTER INTERNATIONAL pre-empt Act Labor Relations Does the National con- based tort in an action jurisdiction state union against a labor brought employee spiracy the instant presented by question and its local? This of federal discussions of the doctrine in-depth For appeal. 83 Harv. L. articles in disputes in labor see pre-emption (1972).1 (1969) L. and 85 Harv. Rev. Rev. 552 International Workers the Sheet Metal sued Carter the Superior union in Augusta local its Association alleges His County. Richmond Court of ma- together, union and its local "conspired parent of his liciously wilfully, deprive Industry Metal in the Sheet denied to be livelihood, to cause means of *4 Industry, deny Broomfield, A. Michael respectively by 1These Tres Concerted Over Federal Jurisdiction Preemptive Cox, Labor Archibald Activity Union passory Law Revisited. Preemption