Court Opinion

ID: 9601945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:50:52.467489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:08.961842
License: Public Domain

Shulman, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to Division 2 of the majority opinion. I cannot agree with such a constricted application of Code Ann. § 38-711, especially since the express intention of the statute is “... that it shall be liberally interpreted and applied.” Code Ann. § 38-711; Minnich v. First Nat. Bank, 152 Ga. App. 833, 834 (264 SE2d 287); One In All Corp. v. Fulton Nat. Bank, 108 Ga. App. 142 (3) (132 SE2d 116). See also Eiberger v. Martel Electronic Sales, 125 Ga. App. 253 (1) (187 SE2d 327).
In the instant case the foundation could probably have been more effectively established by certain routine questions, but the transcript clearly indicates that a substantial compliance with the code section was effected.
This judgment is based on the jury verdict. “ ‘Presumptions favor the validity of verdicts and a construction, if possible, will be given which will uphold them.’ ” Suber v. Fountain, 151 Ga. App. 283, 290 (259 SE2d 685); Code Ann. § 110-105.
The majority opinion flaunts the manifest intention of the General Assembly.
I would affirm. I am authorized to state that Judge Sognier and Judge Pope join in this dissent.