Bland v. Swainsboro Fertilizer Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bland v. Swainsboro Fertilizer Co.

92 S.E. 760, 20 Ga. App. 154, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 763

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 7, 1917

Docket8295

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 92 S.E. 760 (Bland v. Swainsboro Fertilizer 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

Bland v. Swainsboro Fertilizer Co., 92 S.E. 760, 20 Ga. App. 154, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 763 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

1. This was a suit on a verified open account, and a plea . was timely filed which in substance was nothing more than a plea of the general issue, but no demurrer to the plea was filed at .the appearance term, nor was any motion to strike the plea made at that term, nor was the case marked “in default” on the docket. Under such circumstances it was erroneous for the court at the trial term to disallow a proffered amendment to the answer, solely on the ground that . there was nothing in the original answer to amend by. Simmons Furniture &c. Co. v. Reynolds, 135 Ga. 595 (69 S. E. 913).

2. No question as to the sufficiency of the amendment offered was raised in the court below, and therefore that question is not passed upon.

3. The error in the judgment upon the proffered amendment rendered the further proceedings nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Jenhins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, P. J.

1. This was a suit on a verified open account, and a plea . was timely filed which in substance was nothing more than a plea of the general issue, but no demurrer to the plea was filed at .the appearance term, nor was any motion to strike the plea made at that term, nor was the case marked “in default” on the docket. Under such circumstances it was erroneous for the court at the trial term to disallow a proffered amendment to the answer, solely on the ground that . there was nothing in the original answer to amend by. Simmons Furniture &c. Co. v. Reynolds, 135 Ga. 595 (69 S. E. 913).

2. No question as to the sufficiency of the amendment offered was raised in the court below, and therefore that question is not passed upon.

3. The error in the judgment upon the proffered amendment rendered the further proceedings nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Jenhins and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E. 760, 20 Ga. App. 154, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bland-v-swainsboro-fertilizer-co-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack