Gill v. Tison

61 Ga. 161
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 15, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 61 Ga. 161 (Gill v. Tison) 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
Gill v. Tison, 61 Ga. 161 (Ga. 1878).

Opinion

Warner, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants “as [162]*162agents of, and committee appointed by, tbe properly constituted authorities of the Masonic Hall and Leesburg Academy,” to recover an amount of money alleged to be due him for removing a certain described brick building from Starksville and rebuilding the same at Leesburg, the lower part of said building being occupied as an academy, and the upper part occupied by the Masonic fraternity, known as Eureka Lodge. The defendants demurred to the plaintiffs declaration, upon the ground that the Eureka Lodge having been incorporated under the laws of this state, was not sued in plaintiff’s action, and that the persons named in the declaration were sued as agents, when the owners of the property should have been sued. The plaintiff then proposed to amend his declaration by inserting, after the word “showeth,” the following, “the Eureka Lodge and Leesburg Academy, represented by J. P. Tison, R. B. Armstrong, J. Hill yer, T. H. West and H. L. Long, it appearing that the said persons are the officers of the said lodge, worshipful master and wardens,” and also by striking out the word “committee” wherever it appears in the declaration, and insert in lieu thereof the word “defendants.” The court refused to allow the proposed amendment, and sustained the demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration ; whereupon the plaintiff excepted.

The suit should have been brought against the principals and not against the agents, Code, 3257, 39 Ga., 35. The amendment proposed to substitute two new and distinct parties, (to-wit), the “Eureka Lodge, and Leesburg Academy,” as defendants, and was properly refused, Code, 3180. There was no error in sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.

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

Related

LeCraw v. Burdine Enterprises, Inc.
143 S.E.2d 679 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Scoggins v. Hill
82 S.E.2d 739 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Childs v. Hampton
57 S.E.2d 291 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Smith v. White
43 S.E.2d 275 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Pearl Assurance Co. v. Bernath
196 S.E. 389 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1938)
Ruffner v. Dunlop
124 S.E. 544 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Knight v. Forbes
91 S.E. 445 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Arnett v. Board of Commissioners
75 Ga. 782 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1885)
Arnett v. Board of County Commissioners
1 Ga. L. Rep. 52 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1885)
Adams v. Barlow
69 Ga. 302 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1882)
Jones v. Watson
63 Ga. 679 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
61 Ga. 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-v-tison-ga-1878.