Benson v. Marietta Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Benson v. Marietta Fertilizer Co.

77 S.E. 1125, 139 Ga. 691, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 567

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 1125 (Benson v. Marietta Fertilizer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benson v. Marietta Fertilizer Co., 77 S.E. 1125, 139 Ga. 691, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 567 (Ga. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Eish, C. J.

Upon the trial the court refused to allow an amendment 1 offered to the answer, setting up new facts and a defense of which no notice had been given by the original answer. There was no affidavit accompanying the proposed amendment, as required by the Civil Code, •§ 5640, to the effect that at the time of filing the original answer the defendants did not omit the new facts or defense set out in the offered amendment for the purpose of delay, and that the amendment was not offered for delay. The record fails to show upon what ground the court refused to allow the amendment. Held: ■

1. Even if the amendment were otherwise good, there was no abuse of discretion in disallowing it, in the absence of an affidavit as provided for by the code section above cited.

2. There was no conflict in the evidence on any material point in the case, and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom, demanded the verdict directed by the court.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Eish, C. J.

Upon the trial the court refused to allow an amendment 1 offered to the answer, setting up new facts and a defense of which no notice had been given by the original answer. There was no affidavit accompanying the proposed amendment, as required by the Civil Code, •§ 5640, to the effect that at the time of filing the original answer the defendants did not omit the new facts or defense set out in the offered amendment for the purpose of delay, and that the amendment was not offered for delay. The record fails to show upon what ground the court refused to allow the amendment. Held: ■

1. Even if the amendment were otherwise good, there was no abuse of discretion in disallowing it, in the absence of an affidavit as provided for by the code section above cited.

2. There was no conflict in the evidence on any material point in the case, and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions or inferences therefrom, demanded the verdict directed by the court.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 1125, 139 Ga. 691, 1913 Ga. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benson-v-marietta-fertilizer-co-ga-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack