Interlochen Estates Inc. v. Bank of Atlanta

Supreme Court of Georgia

Interlochen Estates Inc. v. Bank of Atlanta

57 S.E.2d 924, 206 Ga. 570, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 528

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1950

Docket16968, 16973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 S.E.2d 924 (Interlochen Estates Inc. v. Bank of Atlanta) 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

Interlochen Estates Inc. v. Bank of Atlanta, 57 S.E.2d 924, 206 Ga. 570, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 528 (Ga. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Duckavorth, Chief Justice.

1. An amendment may be offered upon the announcement of the judge of his decision to sustain a demurrer, or within any time allowed by the judge in the order allowing an amendment. “But after the order sustaining the demurrer has been signed, with no allowance of time to amend, it is too late to amend.” Wells v. Butler’s Builders’ Supply Co. 128 Ga. 37, 39 (57 S. E. 55).

2. Where a demurrer containing both general and special grounds is sustained, the judgment must be affirmed if the petition Avas subject to any of the grounds of the general demurrer. Gunn v. James, 120 Ga. *571 482 (48 S. E. 148); Huggins v. Southeastern Lime & Cement Co., 121 Ga. 311 (48 S. E. 933); Killough v. Simmons, 125 Ga. 101 (53 S. E. 819); McClaren v. Williams, 132 Ga. 352 (64 S. E. 65); Anthony v. Dudley &c. Lumber Co., 21 Ga. App. 412 (94 S. E. 634).

Nos. 16968, 16973. February 14, 1950. Rehearing denied March 15, 1950.

3. The judgment sustaining the demurrers thereupon becomes final and ends the case, and since there is nothing left to amend, any purported amendment of the proceeding thereafter is nugatory. A final bill of exceptions and not exceptions pendente lite is required in such a case to preserve any rights of the plaintiff. Fagan v. Morris Plan Bank, 182 Ga. 347 (185 S. E. 325); Smith v. Atlanta Gas-Light Co., 181 Ga. 479 (182 S. E. 603); Kumpe v. Hudgins, 39 Ga. App. 788 (149 S. E. 56).

■4. On application of the foregoing principles of law to the facts in the present case, the judgment of June 9th‘ sustaining the general and special grounds of the demurrers to the amended petition ended the case. The subsequent attempt by the plaintiff to amend, as well as its exceptions pendente lite to that and subsequent orders, was futile and nugatory, and did not preserve any rights of the plaintiff. Nor was the plaintiff entitled to revert to former pleadings in the case after allowing the judgment on the merits of the amended petition. The formal order dismissing the case was for the foregoing reasons proper.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill. Cross-bill dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Almand, J., disqualified. *572 William G. McRae, for plaintiff. J. F. Kemp and Alston, Foster, Sibley & Miller, for defendants.

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

Duckavorth, Chief Justice.

1. An amendment may be offered upon the announcement of the judge of his decision to sustain a demurrer, or within any time allowed by the judge in the order allowing an amendment. “But after the order sustaining the demurrer has been signed, with no allowance of time to amend, it is too late to amend.” Wells v. Butler’s Builders’ Supply Co. 128 Ga. 37, 39 (57 S. E. 55).

2. Where a demurrer containing both general and special grounds is sustained, the judgment must be affirmed if the petition Avas subject to any of the grounds of the general demurrer. Gunn v. James, 120 Ga. *571 482 (48 S. E. 148); Huggins v. Southeastern Lime & Cement Co., 121 Ga. 311 (48 S. E. 933); Killough v. Simmons, 125 Ga. 101 (53 S. E. 819); McClaren v. Williams, 132 Ga. 352 (64 S. E. 65); Anthony v. Dudley &c. Lumber Co., 21 Ga. App. 412 (94 S. E. 634).

Nos. 16968, 16973. February 14, 1950. Rehearing denied March 15, 1950.

3. The judgment sustaining the demurrers thereupon becomes final and ends the case, and since there is nothing left to amend, any purported amendment of the proceeding thereafter is nugatory. A final bill of exceptions and not exceptions pendente lite is required in such a case to preserve any rights of the plaintiff. Fagan v. Morris Plan Bank, 182 Ga. 347 (185 S. E. 325); Smith v. Atlanta Gas-Light Co., 181 Ga. 479 (182 S. E. 603); Kumpe v. Hudgins, 39 Ga. App. 788 (149 S. E. 56).

■4. On application of the foregoing principles of law to the facts in the present case, the judgment of June 9th‘ sustaining the general and special grounds of the demurrers to the amended petition ended the case. The subsequent attempt by the plaintiff to amend, as well as its exceptions pendente lite to that and subsequent orders, was futile and nugatory, and did not preserve any rights of the plaintiff. Nor was the plaintiff entitled to revert to former pleadings in the case after allowing the judgment on the merits of the amended petition. The formal order dismissing the case was for the foregoing reasons proper.

Judgment affirmed on the main bill. Cross-bill dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Almand, J., disqualified. *572 William G. McRae, for plaintiff. J. F. Kemp and Alston, Foster, Sibley & Miller, for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 S.E.2d 924, 206 Ga. 570, 1950 Ga. LEXIS 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/interlochen-estates-inc-v-bank-of-atlanta-ga-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack