Ellis v. Kite

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ellis v. Kite

129 S.E.2d 547, 107 Ga. App. 237, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 791

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 21, 1963

Docket39903, 39904

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 129 S.E.2d 547 (Ellis v. Kite) 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

Ellis v. Kite, 129 S.E.2d 547, 107 Ga. App. 237, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 791 (Ga. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “No suitor may prosecute two actions in the courts at the same time, for the same cause, and against the same party, and in such a case the defendant may require the plaintiff to elect which he will prosecute if commenced simultaneously; and the pendency of the former shall be a good defense to the latter, if commenced at different times.” Code § 3-601.

2. “. . . [F]rom a single wrong but one cause of action can arise. So long as a plaintiff pleads but one wrong, he does not set up more than one cause of action.” City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785, 791 (48 SE 318); Hamlin v. Johns, 41 Ga. App. 91 (2) (151 SE 815). “A single wrong will not *238 be made plural by alleging that it is made up of a number of constituent parts.” Anglin case, supra, p. 792. “If there is substantial identity of wrong (which necessarily includes identity of the right violated), there is substantial identity of cause of action.” Anglin case supra, p. 793; Milton v. Milton, 195 Ga. 130, 133 (23 SE2d 411); Cheatham v. Palmer, 191 Ga. 617 (13 SE2d 674); Jenkins v. Bridges, 93 Ga. App. 241 (91 SE2d 317).

Decided January 21, 1963. O’Kelley & Hopkins, William C. O’Kelley, for plaintiff’s in error. Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, William H. Schroder, T. M. Smith, Jr., Robert L. Pennington, contra.

3. “Amendments are allowed to cure defects. . . So long as the facts added by the amendment, however different they may be from those alleged in the original petition, show substantially the same wrong in respect to the same transaction, the amendment is not objectionable as adding a new and distinct cause of action.” City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785, 793, supra; Spielberg v. McEntire, 105 Ga. App. 545, 547 (4) (125 SE2d 134).

4. In the instant case, the petitions alleging negligence of the defendant in leaving gauze within an incision of one of the plaintiffs following an operation and failing to locate and remove same in a later exploratory operation set up no cause of action different from pending actions in which it was alleged that the gauze was left in the incision following the second, rather than the first, operation. Under the rules of amendment, the plaintiffs could have amended their petitions by setting forth their causes of action in one or more counts.

The court did not err in sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the actions.

Judgments affirmed.

Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

1. “No suitor may prosecute two actions in the courts at the same time, for the same cause, and against the same party, and in such a case the defendant may require the plaintiff to elect which he will prosecute if commenced simultaneously; and the pendency of the former shall be a good defense to the latter, if commenced at different times.” Code § 3-601.

2. “. . . [F]rom a single wrong but one cause of action can arise. So long as a plaintiff pleads but one wrong, he does not set up more than one cause of action.” City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785, 791 (48 SE 318); Hamlin v. Johns, 41 Ga. App. 91 (2) (151 SE 815). “A single wrong will not *238 be made plural by alleging that it is made up of a number of constituent parts.” Anglin case, supra, p. 792. “If there is substantial identity of wrong (which necessarily includes identity of the right violated), there is substantial identity of cause of action.” Anglin case supra, p. 793; Milton v. Milton, 195 Ga. 130, 133 (23 SE2d 411); Cheatham v. Palmer, 191 Ga. 617 (13 SE2d 674); Jenkins v. Bridges, 93 Ga. App. 241 (91 SE2d 317).

Decided January 21, 1963. O’Kelley & Hopkins, William C. O’Kelley, for plaintiff’s in error. Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, William H. Schroder, T. M. Smith, Jr., Robert L. Pennington, contra.

3. “Amendments are allowed to cure defects. . . So long as the facts added by the amendment, however different they may be from those alleged in the original petition, show substantially the same wrong in respect to the same transaction, the amendment is not objectionable as adding a new and distinct cause of action.” City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785, 793, supra; Spielberg v. McEntire, 105 Ga. App. 545, 547 (4) (125 SE2d 134).

4. In the instant case, the petitions alleging negligence of the defendant in leaving gauze within an incision of one of the plaintiffs following an operation and failing to locate and remove same in a later exploratory operation set up no cause of action different from pending actions in which it was alleged that the gauze was left in the incision following the second, rather than the first, operation. Under the rules of amendment, the plaintiffs could have amended their petitions by setting forth their causes of action in one or more counts.

The court did not err in sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the actions.

Judgments affirmed.

Eberhardt and Russell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E.2d 547, 107 Ga. App. 237, 1963 Ga. App. LEXIS 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-kite-gactapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack