Archer & Cosper v. Arnold-Henegar-Doyle Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Archer & Cosper v. Arnold-Henegar-Doyle Co.

89 S.E. 1089, 18 Ga. App. 588, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1126

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 21, 1916

Docket7421

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 1089 (Archer & Cosper v. Arnold-Henegar-Doyle Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archer & Cosper v. Arnold-Henegar-Doyle Co., 89 S.E. 1089, 18 Ga. App. 588, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1126 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

1. The suit was upon a note, and the defendant filed an answer at the appearance term. On the trial of the case the defendant offered an amendment to the answer, but the accompanying affidavit failed to state that the new facts or defense set out in the amendment were not omitted for the purpose of delay. This was a fatal defect (Civil Code, § 5640), and the court did not err in sustaining the objection to the amendment. Camp v. Peoples Bank, 11 Ga. App. 724 (76 S. E. 80); Gross v. Whitley, 128 Ga. 79 (57 S. E. 94); Thompson v. Rabun, 131 Ga. 713 (63 S. E. 215).

2. When the amendment was rejected the plaintiff made out its case. The defendant offered no evidence, and the court directed a verdict. There was no error in so doing. ' Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hodges, J.

1. The suit was upon a note, and the defendant filed an answer at the appearance term. On the trial of the case the defendant offered an amendment to the answer, but the accompanying affidavit failed to state that the new facts or defense set out in the amendment were not omitted for the purpose of delay. This was a fatal defect (Civil Code, § 5640), and the court did not err in sustaining the objection to the amendment. Camp v. Peoples Bank, 11 Ga. App. 724 (76 S. E. 80); Gross v. Whitley, 128 Ga. 79 (57 S. E. 94); Thompson v. Rabun, 131 Ga. 713 (63 S. E. 215).

2. When the amendment was rejected the plaintiff made out its case. The defendant offered no evidence, and the court directed a verdict. There was no error in so doing. ' Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 1089, 18 Ga. App. 588, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archer-cosper-v-arnold-henegar-doyle-co-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack