Canant v. Mappin

20 Ga. 730
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 15, 1856
DocketNo 139
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 20 Ga. 730 (Canant v. Mappin) 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
Canant v. Mappin, 20 Ga. 730 (Ga. 1856).

Opinion

By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] A cross-bill is nothing more than an addition to the .-answer. It makes a part of the pleading which states the defence, the answer being the other part. Now to add to a. •..pleading, is to amend the pleading. If a new count is added to a declaration, the declaration is amended; if a new plea to a plea, the plea is amended. So, if a cross-bill is added; -to an answer, the answer is amended. There is not any word ■ more fit to express the effect of such an addition than this word, amended. When, therefore, a defendant adds to his ■answer a cross-bill, he amends his answer; and as his answer is his pleading, he amends his pleading.

But the Act of 1854, relating in part to amendments, says, that “ plaintiffs and defendants,” “ whether at Law or in .Equity, may, in any stage of the cause, as matter of right,

. amend their pleadings in all respects, whether in matter of .form or matter of substance.” {Ads 1853-’4, 48.)

We therefore think that the Court was right in not dis•missing the cross-bill in this case.

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

Related

Ledwith v. City of Jacksonville
32 Fla. 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Ga. 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canant-v-mappin-ga-1856.