Martin & Lanier Paint Co. v. Daniels

1. The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the defendant’s answer.

2. The amended answer was not subject to general demurrer.

3. Conceding that the court erred in overruling some of the special demurrers interposed to the amended answer, it appears with reasonable certainty from the facts of the case that no injury resulted to the plaintiff in error; and therefore a new trial will not be granted because of such errors. See, in this connection, Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co. v. Vaughan, 9 Ga. App. 371 (5) (71 S. E. 691).

4. Upon the call of the case for trial, counsel for the plaintiff…