Sullivan, Cabot & Co. v. Rome R. R.

28 Ga. 29
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 15, 1859
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 28 Ga. 29 (Sullivan, Cabot & Co. v. Rome R. R.) 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
Sullivan, Cabot & Co. v. Rome R. R., 28 Ga. 29 (Ga. 1859).

Opinion

By the Court.

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

When this case was first tried in the circuit court, the defendant, that is, the Rome Railroad Company, moved for a non-suit. The application was refused — the defendant excepted and brought his writ of error to this court. (25 Geo. Rep. 228.) We reversed the judgment of the [30]*30court below; and when the remittitur was sent back, a motion was made by the defendant to enter the judgment of reversal on the minutes of the court.

Cotemporaneously with this motion the plaintiff asked leave to amend his declaration, so as to make it correspond with his proof. This was denied, and Sullivan, Cabot & Co. excepted.

We think the amendment should have been allowed. Suppose the circuit judge, in the first instance, should have granted the non-suit, would it not have been competent for the plaintiff to have amended his writ so as to make it conform to the case as proven by the testimony Í Most assuredly the judgment of reversal by this court could not do more than this. It does not terminate a case proprio vigore, but our judgments have to be carried into effect by the circuit court. Here, then, is a stage of the proceeding at which it is the right of the party under the statute, to amend his pleadings. And the law is good. It saves delay and cost — two of the greatest evils attendant on the administration of justice.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Giordano v. Stubbs
199 S.E.2d 322 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Kiser v. Kiser
108 S.E.2d 265 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1959)
Southeastern Wholesale Furniture Co. v. Atlanta Metallic Casket Co.
66 S.E.2d 68 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Irons v. American National Bank
172 S.E. 629 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Staton v. Exchange Bank
82 S.E. 784 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Chisholm v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
80 S.E. 528 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1914)
Rice v. Ware & Harper
60 S.E. 301 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Fenn v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway
48 S.E. 141 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Augusta Railway Co. v. Andrews
19 S.E. 713 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1893)
Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Paterson
13 S.E. 525 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Ga. 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-cabot-co-v-rome-r-r-ga-1859.