Legal Opinion
Heyward v. Ramsey
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided June 15, 1926No. 17275PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, 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…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ellison v. Georgia RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- City of Columbus v. AnglinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Moore v. Hendrix & HodgesSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- Southern Railway Co. v. GrantSupreme Court of Georgia · 1911
- Schmidt v. WambackerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1879
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Finn v. CardenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. TealCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965