History
  • No items yet
midpage
Burch v. Swift
116 Ga. 595
Ga.
1902
Check Treatment
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.

Case Details

Case Name: Burch v. Swift
Court Name: Supreme Court of Georgia
Date Published: Oct 31, 1902
Citation: 116 Ga. 595
Court Abbreviation: Ga.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.