Court Opinion

ID: 9849059
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:34:04.437843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:59.493670
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge
dissenting. It was held by this court in Lewis v. Price, 104 Ga. App. 473 (122 SE2d 129) that the purposes of the act of 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 342; Code Ann. § 3-512), were to protect litigants from dilatory counsel and to prevent the cluttering of court records with inactive litigation. It is my opinion that neither purpose applies under the circumstances of this case. The act was passed to benefit the presiding judge and to protect one party in litigation from dilatory action on the part of the other party to the case. Where a trial judge is disqualified in a case it is his duty to provide a qualified judge to try the case. Code § 24-2623. Code Ann. § 24-2625 provides that a judge may be selected by an agreement between counsel, which was not done in this case. When the judge does not procure a qualified judge and there is no agreement between the parties, it is the duty of the clerk of the court to select a competent attorney practicing in the court, or judge emeritus, to try the case. In my view, *807under the circumstances of this case, it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff’s attorney to procure any kind of written order, either providing for the naming of a qualified judge or one for the continuance of the case. Assuming that a disqualified judge could enter a written order by consent continuing a case, such a procedure is entirely unnecessary where the judge is disqualified and the parties orally agreed that the case be continued. I think that the act of 1953 applies only to cases where the trial judge is not disqualified and where the cases which could have had some appropriate order passed in them remain on the docket because of the dilatory action by one of the parties in failing to force a judgment in writing which would have been necessary to save the case from dismissal under the act of 1953. I do not think that a party should be penalized for the failure of the judge and the clerk to perform their duties, and especially where in addition thereto there is the acquiescence of the other party in such non-action by the judge and the clerk. My views in this matter in no way conflict, in my humble opinion, with the ruling in Bowen v. Morrison, 103 Ga. App. 632 (120 SE2d 57).