Legal Opinion

Ayers v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 1, 1936No. 24918PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

1. While, under the Code of 1933, § 81-1303, that “no amendment adding a new and distinct cause of action . . shall be allowed unless expressly provided by law,” and that “a suit on quantum meruit or open account can not by amendment be converted into a suit on an express contract” (Jones v. Schacter, 31 Ga. App. 709 (3), 710, 121 S. E. 691; Kraft v. Rowland, 33 Ga. App. 806, 808, 128 S. E. 812), yet where a petition declares upon a quantum meruit, and an amendment is allowed, subject to the right of demurrer, adding a paragraph declaring *535upon an express contract without striking the quantum…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Hudson v. HudsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1892
  2. Willingham, Wright & Covington v. GloverCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922
  3. Kraft v. Rowland & RowlandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
  4. Jackson v. BuiceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  5. Felton v. State Highway BoardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1933

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sammons v. NabersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  2. Meads v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
  3. Hollingsworth v. RedwineCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
  4. Stinchcomb v. HoardSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API