Joseph Sun brought this action in several counts against J. M. Bush, Richard Diehl, Michael Welch, Robert Ingram, S. H. White *141 and J. M. Cowart seeking to set aside a judgment and to recover damages for perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury as well as for harassment and invasion of privacy. Pursuant to various motions made by the defendants, including a motion for summary judgment filed by two of the defendants, the trial court dismissed all of Sun’s claims except for that against Bush, Diehl and Welch for harassment and invasion of privacy. Sun appeals under authority of OCGA § 9-11-54 (b).
Appellees Bush and Diehl, police officers, brought suit against appellant for libel and slander based on appellant’s claims that they had committed perjury in the prosecution of a traffic ticket issued against appellant. At the trial of the libel and slander action, appellee Welch represented Bush and Diehl, and appellees Ingram, White and Cowart appeared as witnesses on behalf of Bush and Diehl. After the jury returned a verdict in favor of Bush and Diehl, appellant instituted this action.
1. Appellees’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal is denied. OCGA § 5-6-48 (a), (b).
2. Appellant contends the trial court erred by granting judgment in favor of appellees pursuant to their various motions on Count One of appellant’s original complaint which sought to attack and set aside the judgment against him in the libel and slander action on the grounds of appellees’ alleged perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury. In order to set aside a judgment obtained as a result of corrupt and wilful perjury, it must be shown that the persons charged with such perjury have been convicted thereof. OCGA § 17-1-4;
Arnold v. State,
3. Appellant contends the trial court erred by dismissing his claim for damages based on his allegations against appellees for perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury. Whether there is a civil cause of action for damages for perjury or conspiracy to commit perjury appears to be a case of first impression in this State. However, we agree with the overwhelming majority of authority from other jurisdictions which holds that no such cause of action exists. Annot., 31 ALR3d 1423 § 2 [a]; 70 CJS, Perjury, §§ 92-93;
Hokanson v. Lichtor,
Judgment affirmed.
