Heyward v. Ramsey, 134 S.E. 119 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926). · Go Syfert
Search
Heyward v. Ramsey, 134 S.E. 119 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Finn v. Carden (gactapp, 1959-09-09)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Finn v. Carden
Ga. Ct. App. · 1959 · confidence medium
Ittner Bros. v. Farmers’ State Bank, 15 Ga. App. 235 , 82 S. E. 909 , holds: “A petition as upon an open account, with a copy of the alleged account attached, one item of which is, ‘To contract price of bank building,’ is not subject to demurrer on the ground that ‘there is not set forth in the petition, nor attached thereto, a copy of the contract referred to in exhibit A (the account), nor are the terms and stipulations of said contract substantially set forth in the petition.’ The words ‘contract price’ do not necessarily imply a written contract; and even if they do, the su…
cited Cited "see, e.g." Sinclair Refining Co. v. Scott
Ga. Ct. App. · 1939 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Heyward v. Ramsey, 35 Ga. App. 472 ( 134 S. E. 119 ).
HEYWARD
v.
RAMSEY
17275.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Jun 15, 1926.
134 S.E. 119
Thad. L. Bynum, for plaintiff in error., J. 0. & H. E. Edwards, contra.
Bloodworth.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published
Bloodworth, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) The court did not err in overruling the demurrers.

The amendment did not set forth a new and distinct cause of action from that alleged in the petition. The amendment does not contain any other or different wrong from that pleaded in the original petition, but-the additional matter is simply descriptive of the same wrong. City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785 (5) (48 S. E. 318); Moore v. Hendrix, 144 Ga. 646 (3) (87 S. E. 915).

There was enough in the original petition to amend by. “There was a plaintiff, a defendant, jurisdiction of the court, and facts enough to indicate and identify some particular cause of action as the one intended to be declared upon so as to enable the court to determine whether the facts to be introduced by the amendment are a part and parcel of the same case.” Ellison v. Georgia Railroad Co., 87 Ga. 692 (6) (13 S. E. 809). The amendment did nothing more than to perfect an imperfect cause of action.

Though the petition alleges that the amount due the plaintiff was for services rendered “as per contract,” it was not necessary to attach a copy of the contract, for it “is not declared on, does not constitute the cause of action, and there is no prayer for relief based thereon. Civil Code, § 5541. The contract (if there[*474] be one in writing) is simply evidence of the indebtedness and could be used as such.” Ittner v. Farmers State Bank, 15 Ga. App. 235 (89 S. E. 909) ; Cooney v. Foote, 15 Ga. App. 457 (3) (83 S. E. 896); Chatham Abattoir &c. Co. v. Painter Engineering Co., 28 Ga. App. 383 (111 S. E. 82); Southern Ry. Co. v. Grant, 136 Ga. 303 (1), 304 (71 S. E. 422, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 472); Roberts v. Leak, 108 Ga. 806 (33 S. E. 995); Schmidt v. Wambacker, 62 Ga. 321.

’ There was some evidence to support the finding of the jury, and the verdict having been approved by the trial court the judgment is Affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.