Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Complaint; from city court of Madison—Judge Anderson. January 28, 1918. The H. H. Fitzpatrick Company brought suit .against Sorrells for $198.40 principal, and $95.22 interest, alleging that the debt was evidenced by a promissory note, a copy of which was attached to the petition. The copy attached was of a note for $225 principal, besides interest, and in the same instrument was a mortgage on certain crops.
Read the full summary
Complaint; from city court of Madison—Judge Anderson. January 28, 1918. The H. H. Fitzpatrick Company brought suit .against Sorrells for $198.40 principal, and $95.22 interest, alleging that the debt was evidenced by a promissory note, a copy of which was attached to the petition. The copy attached was of a note for $225 principal, besides interest, and in the same instrument was a mortgage on certain crops. The court, over the objection of the defendant, 'allowed an amendment changing the principal of the note to $725. A note described in the amendment as “the original note sued on” was…
1Opinion of the CourtBroyles, P. J.
1. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the ’ amendment to the original petition.
2. Under the evidence and the pleadings the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, or in refusing to dismiss the'suit, or in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.
Judgment affirmed.
Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur. E. H. George, for plaintiff in err,or. M. 0. Few, contra.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Thornhill v. CochranCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923