Southern Railway Co. v. Flynt
Southern Railway Company v. Flynt, and vice versa
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Russell, J.
1. The court did not err in allowing the amendment to the petition. City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ca. 785 ( 48 S. E. 318 ).
2. A petition containing a single count, seeking to recover damages growing of a transaction brought about by alleged negligence of the defendant, may be amended by adding a count in which the same injury is complained of, but in which the details of the transactions are varied. From certain technical standpoints, each count sets forth a distinct and separate cause of action, but the court will look beyond the fictitious separateness and distinctness of the alleged causes of action, where the interests of justice so require.
Judgment on the main bill of exception? affirmed; on the cross-bill reversed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.