Southern Railway Co. v. Flynt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Flynt

72 S.E. 189, 9 Ga. App. 757, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 319

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 28, 1911

Docket3123, 3124

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 189 (Southern Railway Co. v. Flynt) 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

Southern Railway Co. v. Flynt, 72 S.E. 189, 9 Ga. App. 757, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the petition. City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ca. 785 (48 S. E. 318).

2. A petition containing a single count, seeking to recover damages growing of a transaction brought about by alleged negligence of the defendant, may be amended by adding a count in which the same injury is complained of, but in which the details of the transactions are varied. From certain technical standpoints, each count sets forth a distinct and separate cause of action, but the court will look beyond the fictitious separateness and distinctness of the alleged causes of action, where the interests of justice so require.

Judgment on the main bill of exception? affirmed; on the cross-bill reversed.

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

Russell, J.

1. The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the petition. City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ca. 785 (48 S. E. 318).

2. A petition containing a single count, seeking to recover damages growing of a transaction brought about by alleged negligence of the defendant, may be amended by adding a count in which the same injury is complained of, but in which the details of the transactions are varied. From certain technical standpoints, each count sets forth a distinct and separate cause of action, but the court will look beyond the fictitious separateness and distinctness of the alleged causes of action, where the interests of justice so require.

Judgment on the main bill of exception? affirmed; on the cross-bill reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 189, 9 Ga. App. 757, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-flynt-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack