Gaines v. Wedgeworth

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gaines v. Wedgeworth

19 Ga. 31

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 15, 1855

DocketNo. 8

StatusPublished

This text of 19 Ga. 31 (Gaines v. Wedgeworth) 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

Gaines v. Wedgeworth, 19 Ga. 31 (Ga. 1855).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

Courts have power, under the 'Act of 1818, to allow confessions of judgment to be amended in the manner in which it was proposed to be done in this case. (Pr. Digest, 441. Seymour vs. Howard, 15 Ga. R. 110.)

The case was one in which the exercise of the power was proper.

The showing for leave to amend amounts to this: The Attorneys who gave the confession announced to the Court that they were willing to confess a judgment, with a reservation of the right of appeal. This they thought was heard and agreed to by the Attorneys on the other side; therefore, they thought that those Attorneys, in writing out the confession, would insert in it a reservation of the right of appeal. And for this reason, they did not examine the confession, to see whether iff contained the reservation or not. This is a case of inadvertence. In a case not dissimilar in principle, this Court decided that the party confessing was entitled to a bill in Equity for a new trial. Booth and another vs. Stamper, (6 Ga. R. 172.)

But why should a party be compelled to go into Equity, when his object may be better accomplished at Law, by an amendment consisting in five words — “reserving the right of' appeal.”

We think the judgment allowing the amendment was right... See Little vs. Ingram et al. (16 Ga. R. 194.)

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

By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

Courts have power, under the 'Act of 1818, to allow confessions of judgment to be amended in the manner in which it was proposed to be done in this case. (Pr. Digest, 441. Seymour vs. Howard, 15 Ga. R. 110.)

The case was one in which the exercise of the power was proper.

The showing for leave to amend amounts to this: The Attorneys who gave the confession announced to the Court that they were willing to confess a judgment, with a reservation of the right of appeal. This they thought was heard and agreed to by the Attorneys on the other side; therefore, they thought that those Attorneys, in writing out the confession, would insert in it a reservation of the right of appeal. And for this reason, they did not examine the confession, to see whether iff contained the reservation or not. This is a case of inadvertence. In a case not dissimilar in principle, this Court decided that the party confessing was entitled to a bill in Equity for a new trial. Booth and another vs. Stamper, (6 Ga. R. 172.)

But why should a party be compelled to go into Equity, when his object may be better accomplished at Law, by an amendment consisting in five words — “reserving the right of' appeal.”

We think the judgment allowing the amendment was right... See Little vs. Ingram et al. (16 Ga. R. 194.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 Ga. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaines-v-wedgeworth-ga-1855.