Woods v. Canady., 126 Ga. App. 389, 190 S.E.2d 920 (1972)
Linked as:
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Evans, J., concur.
Summary
Judgment affirmed. Bell, C. J., and Evans, J., concur.
Text
Mell Woods, pro se.
1. In this action by a buyer to rescind a contract for the purchase of a motor vehicle on the ground of his minority at the time of the transaction, the trial judge did not err in failing, summarily and on his own motion, to grant the relief sought on the ground that the defendant's answer supported the conclusion therein of the defense of estoppel in pais by the allegation of fewer than all of the requisite elements of that defense. The defendant set forth this defense "affirmatively," as required by Code Ann. 81A-108 (c) (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 619; as amended), so as to fulfill the purpose of pleading under the CPA, i.e.,to give notice of what the adverse party may expect to meet, rather than to frame issues, as was the purpose of pre-CPA pleading. Kellogg Co. v. Nat. Biscuit Co. (DC-NJ), 38 FSupp. 643; Battin Amusement Co. v. Cocalis Amusement Co. (DC-NJ), 1 FRD. 769. It now suffices to plead conclusions, whether of fact or of law, provided the pleading is sufficiently definite so as to give fair notice to the opposite party of the precise nature of the matters thereby raised and sufficiently inform the court to determine the question presented. Mails v. Kansas City Public Service Commn. (DC-MO.), 51 FSupp 562; Sheridan-Wyoming Coal Co. v. Krug (App. DC), 168 F2d 557. A pleading is not subject to dismissal unless it appears to a certainty that the pleader cannot possibly be entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved in support of its allegations. See Byrd v. Ford Motor Co.,
2. The trial judge did not err in "letting the jury decide the questions of law constituting the elements of an estoppel in pais," as contended in enumerated error 2. " '[W]here the facts relied on to establish the estoppel do not unequivocally show an estoppel in pais, the jury, and not the judge, should determine whether the facts constitute such an estoppel.' " Hughes v. Cobb,
4. A consideration of enumerated error 4, the overruling of the plaintiff's motion for judgment n.o.v., depends on a transcript of evidence, which was not filed; therefore, this enumerated error presents nothing for review. See Lofton, Stark, and Miller, supra, cited in Division 2 hereinabove.
The judgment in favor of the defendant was not error for any reason contended.
Randolph C. Karrh, for appellee.
1972
Sponsored links
