Burch v. Swift, 43 S.E. 64 (Ga. 1902). · Go Syfert
Search
Burch v. Swift, 43 S.E. 64 (Ga. 1902). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Muscogee Manufacturing Co. v. Cady
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." Muscogee Manufacturing Co. v. Cady
unknown court · 1918 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Southern Bauxite Co. v. Fuller, 116 Ga. 695 ( 43 S. E. 64 ); King Manufacturing Co. v. Walton, 1 Ga. App. 403 (3), 410 ( 58 S. E. 115 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Burch, ordinary
v.
Swift
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Oct 31, 1902.
43 S.E. 64
Z. B. Rogers and J. N. Worley, for plaintiff., W. D. Tutt & Son and G. P. Harris, for defendants.
Adams, Lumpkin.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Adams, J.

1. Where one of several defendants files a plea in his own name, it is error to subsequently allow him, by way of an amendment, to join with him in his plea his codefendants, who are in default.

2. In the light of the entire record, and the act of 1898, amending the Civil Code, § 5541, concerning exceptions pendente lite (Acts 1898, p. 59), it sufficiently appears that the exceptions pendente lite in this case were allowed and filed in time. (Van Epps’ Code Supp. § 6206.)

Argued October 6, Decided October 31, Rehearing denied December 9, 1902. Action on bond. Before Judge Holden. Elbert superior court. June 16, 1902. Z. B. Rogers and J. N. Worley, for plaintiff. W. D. Tutt & Son and G. P. Harris, for defendants.

3. The effect of the reversal of the judgment allowing the amendment in this case is to set aside the proceedings occurring after the amendment, and to place the case where it stood prior to the amendment.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concurring, except Lumpkin, P. J., absent.