Venable Bros. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Venable Bros. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.

137 F. 981, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5027

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1905

DocketNo. 796

StatusPublished

This text of 137 F. 981 (Venable Bros. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Venable Bros. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 137 F. 981, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5027 (circtndga 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PARDEE, Circuit Judge.

The contention that the' plaintiffs’ original declaration contains two counts upon separate causes of [982]*982action, to-wit, one count under the tracing act, and one on through bill of lading, is not well founded. This not only appears from the substance of the declaration, but also from the form thereof, as the pleader made no effort to comply with the rule declared in Cooper v. Portner Brewing Company, 112 Ga. 895, 38 S. E. 91, to the effect that where , a petition contains, under different counts, more than one cause of action, each count must contain a complete cause of action, in distinct arid separate paragraphs. The declaration negatives the construction that it is a suit upon a through bill' of lading. The bill of lading, which is made a part of plaintiffs’ petition (sixth paragraph), and is attached to the declaration as an exhibit, shows that the liability of the defendant thereunder ceased at Atlanta, Ga.

' A fair construction of the declaration shows the suit is founded on the tracing act, contained in sections 2317 and 2318 of the Georgia Code of 1895. Suits uñder the said sections are held in the Supreme Court of the state of Georgia to be in the nature of suits for a penalty. McCall v. Central of Georgia Railroad Company, 120 Ga. 602-605, 48 S. E. 157. It seems to be settled that a suit for a penalty cannot be converted into an action upon a contract by amendment. Western & Atlantic Railroad Company v. Exposition Cotton Mills, 81 Ga. 522, 7 S. E. 916, 2 L. R. A. 102; Exposition Cotton Mills v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Company, 83 Ga. 441, 10 S. E. 113.

It is to be further noticed that, the plaintiffs having pleaded the bill of lading in< the original declaration, they cannot be allowed by an amendment to repudiate or impeach the same. Southern Railroad Company v. Parramore, 119 Ga. 690, 46 S. E. 822.

The motion for leave to.amend is refused.

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

PARDEE, Circuit Judge.

The contention that the' plaintiffs’ original declaration contains two counts upon separate causes of [982]*982action, to-wit, one count under the tracing act, and one on through bill of lading, is not well founded. This not only appears from the substance of the declaration, but also from the form thereof, as the pleader made no effort to comply with the rule declared in Cooper v. Portner Brewing Company, 112 Ga. 895, 38 S. E. 91, to the effect that where , a petition contains, under different counts, more than one cause of action, each count must contain a complete cause of action, in distinct arid separate paragraphs. The declaration negatives the construction that it is a suit upon a through bill' of lading. The bill of lading, which is made a part of plaintiffs’ petition (sixth paragraph), and is attached to the declaration as an exhibit, shows that the liability of the defendant thereunder ceased at Atlanta, Ga.

' A fair construction of the declaration shows the suit is founded on the tracing act, contained in sections 2317 and 2318 of the Georgia Code of 1895. Suits uñder the said sections are held in the Supreme Court of the state of Georgia to be in the nature of suits for a penalty. McCall v. Central of Georgia Railroad Company, 120 Ga. 602-605, 48 S. E. 157. It seems to be settled that a suit for a penalty cannot be converted into an action upon a contract by amendment. Western & Atlantic Railroad Company v. Exposition Cotton Mills, 81 Ga. 522, 7 S. E. 916, 2 L. R. A. 102; Exposition Cotton Mills v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Company, 83 Ga. 441, 10 S. E. 113.

It is to be further noticed that, the plaintiffs having pleaded the bill of lading in< the original declaration, they cannot be allowed by an amendment to repudiate or impeach the same. Southern Railroad Company v. Parramore, 119 Ga. 690, 46 S. E. 822.

The motion for leave to.amend is refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 F. 981, 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venable-bros-v-louisville-n-r-co-circtndga-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack