TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Whiddon v. Southern Auto Finance Co.

WHIDDON v. SOUTHERN AUTO FINANCE COMPANY

Whiddon v. Southern Auto Fin. Co., 3 S.E.2d 889 (Ga. 1939)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Georgia · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 16, 1939
Docket
No. 12845
Judges
Grice
Citations
3 S.E.2d 889188 Ga. 3401939 Ga. LEXIS 530

Opinion of the Court — Grice

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Grice, Justice.

Counsel for plaintiff in error earnestly insists that, since multifariousness and misjoinder are defects in a petition which can be taken advantage of only by special demurrer, under the decision in Sims v. Cordele Ice Co., 119 Ga. 597 ( 46 S. E. 841 ), he has the right to amend. In that case direction was given that before the remittitur was entered the plaintiff be allowed to amend his petition so as to cure the defects therein. On the former appearance of the instant ease, the question of allowing leave to offer an amendment when the judgment reached the trial court, so as to save a dismissal, was considered, and the conclusion was reached that for the reáson stated in the opinion this could not be done. It is the general rule that “Where a declaration has been demurred to in the trial court, and the demurrer *341 overruled and that judgment reversed by this court, upon the return of the remittitur to the lower court the plaintiff has the right to amend his declaration. Charleston Ry. Co. v. Miller, 115 Ga. 92 [ 41 S. E. 252 ]. It is otherwise where the lower court has sustained a demurrer, and that judgment affirmed by this court. . . Central R. Co. v. Paterson, 87 Ga. 646 [ 13 S. E. 525 ].” City of Rome v. Sudduth, 121 Ga. 420 ( 49 S. E. 300 ). This court in its decision in the 186 Ga. 726 (supra), declined to direct that leave to amend be given. The trial court correctly construed our ruling “to let the dismissal stand.”

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1939: 11959: 219392026peak 1959 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Weimer v. Cauble106 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. 1959)
  2. Kiser v. Kiser108 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. 1959)
  3. Whiddon v. National Union Fire Insurance6 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)

Most recent

  1. Kiser v. Kiser108 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. 1959)
  2. Weimer v. Cauble106 S.E.2d 781 (Ga. 1959)
  3. Whiddon v. National Union Fire Insurance6 S.E.2d 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Cent. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Paterson, 13 S.E. 525 (Ga. 1891) 32
Sims v. Cordele Ice Co., 46 S.E. 841 (Ga. 1904) 25
City of Rome v. Sudduth, 49 S.E. 300 (Ga. 1904) 20
Charleston & Western Carolina Ry. Co. v. Miller, 41 S.E. 252 (Ga. 1902) 17
Whiddon v. Southern Auto Fin. Co., 198 S.E. 729 (Ga. 1938) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list