Jarrett v. City Electric Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Jarrett v. City Electric Railway Co.

47 S.E. 927, 120 Ga. 472, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 593

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 47 S.E. 927 (Jarrett v. City Electric Railway Co.) 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

Jarrett v. City Electric Railway Co., 47 S.E. 927, 120 Ga. 472, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 593 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where it clearly appears that, in the trial of the questions brought up by a bill of exceptions, no evidence was introduced before the trial judge, the writ of error will not be dismissed because the bill of exceptions does not expressly state that no evidence was introduced.

2. Where Jarrett brought suit against a street-railway company and the plaintiff’s name was properly stated in the body of the original petition, but was written “Jarvitt” in the “backing” of the petition and in the caption of the process annexed by the clerk and was also written “Jarvitt ” in the copy petition and in the caption of the copy process served upon the defendant, and on the trial the court allowed the name of the plaintiff to be corrected in the caption of the process, in the “backing” of the petition, and on the docket, prior to which time the defendant had answered to the merits, it was not necessary that the process as amended should be served upon the defendant. If, in consequence of the amendment, the defendant was unprepared to go to trial,-the court would doubtless have granted it time for preparation.

3. In such case it was, therefore, error for the court to dismiss the case because the plaintiff refused to have the defendant served with the process as amended. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Simmons, C. J.

1. Where it clearly appears that, in the trial of the questions brought up by a bill of exceptions, no evidence was introduced before the trial judge, the writ of error will not be dismissed because the bill of exceptions does not expressly state that no evidence was introduced.

2. Where Jarrett brought suit against a street-railway company and the plaintiff’s name was properly stated in the body of the original petition, but was written “Jarvitt” in the “backing” of the petition and in the caption of the process annexed by the clerk and was also written “Jarvitt ” in the copy petition and in the caption of the copy process served upon the defendant, and on the trial the court allowed the name of the plaintiff to be corrected in the caption of the process, in the “backing” of the petition, and on the docket, prior to which time the defendant had answered to the merits, it was not necessary that the process as amended should be served upon the defendant. If, in consequence of the amendment, the defendant was unprepared to go to trial,-the court would doubtless have granted it time for preparation.

3. In such case it was, therefore, error for the court to dismiss the case because the plaintiff refused to have the defendant served with the process as amended. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 S.E. 927, 120 Ga. 472, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarrett-v-city-electric-railway-co-ga-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack