Milburn & Co. v. Davis & Tatnall

92 Ga. 362
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 27, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 92 Ga. 362 (Milburn & Co. v. Davis & Tatnall) 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
Milburn & Co. v. Davis & Tatnall, 92 Ga. 362 (Ga. 1893).

Opinion

[362]*362 Judgment reversed.

After one of the plaintiff's had been introduced as a witness and his testimony partly delivered, the plaintiffs offered an amendment, alleging that, having entered into the contract with Symmons and he having failed and refused to pay for the loading of the cotton, the plaintiffs declined to go on further with the loading of the vessel; whereupon the master of the vessel entered into a contract with them whereby to enable him to carry out his contract of loading and to earn his freight money, and to avoid demurrage and delay, he agreed for and on behalf of the ship-owners, that from that date and for all cotton subsequently loaded he would pay the stevedore charges to plaintiffs, which they insist he had a right to do in the exercise of his duties as master, and bind the steamship and the owners. To this amendment the defendants objected because: (1) It was inconsistent, at variance with and in contradiction of the allegations of the declaration. (2) It set out a suit upon a contract made subsequently to the one declared on originally, and with another and independent person different from him with whom the contract sued upon was alleged to have been made. (3) It set up a new and independent cause of action altogether different from the one sued on. Crovatt & Whitfield, for plaintiffs in error. Goodyear & Kay and Symmes & Bennet, by J. H. Lumpkin, contra.

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

Related

Lambert v. Georgia Power Co.
183 S.E. 814 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Poss v. Hardin
182 S.E. 898 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1935)
Council v. Wilson
123 S.E. 752 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Sweat v. Hendley
51 S.E. 331 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)
Lamar v. Lamar, Taylor & Riley Drug Co.
45 S.E. 671 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 Ga. 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milburn-co-v-davis-tatnall-ga-1893.