Sanders v. Downtown Lincoln Mercury, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Sanders v. Downtown Lincoln Mercury, Inc.

97 S.E.2d 546, 95 Ga. App. 233, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 762

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 27, 1957

Docket36482

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E.2d 546 (Sanders v. Downtown Lincoln Mercury, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanders v. Downtown Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 97 S.E.2d 546, 95 Ga. App. 233, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 762 (Ga. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, C. J.

1.. Where the original petition alleging an indebtedness on an open account which has an insufficient bill of particulars attached is amended by changing the amount sued for and alleging that “said account being due on a check,” and said amendment is allowed, the question raised by the general demurrer to the original petition is moot at that stage of the case, and where the general demurrer to the original petition is insisted upon after the amendment and the court rules thereon, such ruling has no legality and will not support a direct bill of exceptions.

2. The judgment overruling the objection and demurrer to the amendment was not a final judgment and would not have been [235]*235one had the court sustained the objection and demurrer because in that event the plaintiff could have amended his original petition by adding a sufficient bill of particulars.

Since there is no final judgment excepted to, the bill of exceptions is premature and we cannot rule on the question whether the amendment sought to substitute a cause of action different from that originally sued on, but on this question, see Moore v. Hendrix & Hodges, 144 Ga. 646 (1a, 3) (87 S. E. 915); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Scott, 60 Ga. App. 76 (2 S. E. 2d 755).

Writ of error dismissed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, C. J.

1.. Where the original petition alleging an indebtedness on an open account which has an insufficient bill of particulars attached is amended by changing the amount sued for and alleging that “said account being due on a check,” and said amendment is allowed, the question raised by the general demurrer to the original petition is moot at that stage of the case, and where the general demurrer to the original petition is insisted upon after the amendment and the court rules thereon, such ruling has no legality and will not support a direct bill of exceptions.

2. The judgment overruling the objection and demurrer to the amendment was not a final judgment and would not have been [235]*235one had the court sustained the objection and demurrer because in that event the plaintiff could have amended his original petition by adding a sufficient bill of particulars.

Since there is no final judgment excepted to, the bill of exceptions is premature and we cannot rule on the question whether the amendment sought to substitute a cause of action different from that originally sued on, but on this question, see Moore v. Hendrix & Hodges, 144 Ga. 646 (1a, 3) (87 S. E. 915); Sinclair Refining Co. v. Scott, 60 Ga. App. 76 (2 S. E. 2d 755).

Writ of error dismissed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E.2d 546, 95 Ga. App. 233, 1957 Ga. App. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-downtown-lincoln-mercury-inc-gactapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack