DeLay v. Latimer
This text of 106 S.E. 901 (DeLay v. Latimer) 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.
Opinion
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The Civil Code (1910), § 5688, provides, that when two or more persons are sued in the same action, either on a contract or for a tort, the plaintiff may amend his declaration by striking out one or more of such de[370]*370fendants, and proceed against the remaining defendant or defendants, if there is no other legal difficulty in the case. The defendant dismissed from the suit set up various grounds in her original answer and the amendment thereto why the petitioner’s claim to foreclose the mortgage should be denied, but she prayed for no affirmative relief, either against the plaintiff or her codefendant, and therefore no legal difficulty is presented why the petitioner should not exercise his statutory right to discontinue the case as to her by having her name stricken as a defendant. Bower v. Cohen, 126 Ga. 35, 37 (54 S. E. 918); Pearson v. Courson, 129 Ga. 656 (5), 660 (59 S. E. 907).
As the defendant in her answer prayed for no relief, the fact that the suit to foreclose the mortgage may in the circumstances be a proceeding in rem does not affect the ruling made.
Judgment aj/irmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
106 S.E. 901, 151 Ga. 367, 1921 Ga. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delay-v-latimer-ga-1921.