Case Name: FORSYTH v. SOUTH SIDE MOTORS INC., et al.
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1949-07-16
Citations: 79 Ga. App. 719
Docket Number: 32615
Parties: FORSYTH v. SOUTH SIDE MOTORS INC., et al.
Judges: MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 719–721

Head Matter:
32615.
FORSYTH v. SOUTH SIDE MOTORS INC., et al.
Decided July 16, 1949.
Hewlett & Dennis, Sam D. Hewlett Jr., T. F. Bowden,. Florence H. Dendy, for plaintiff in error.
Harold Sheats, contra.

Opinion:
Townsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) In Small v. Wilson, 20 Ga. App. 674 (93 S. E. 518), a bail-trover case,, this court held in substance that a mere clerical error in describing the property that constituted the subject-matter of the case may be cured by amendment if it is apparent from the two descriptions, that is, the description as shown by the original petition and the description as shown by the amendment, that the-pleader had in mind the same property. This requirement is adequately met by the pleadings here. The proffered amendment expressly so alleges and leaves room for no other conclusion. Had the proffered amendment been allowed, there would, have been no variance between the pleadings and the proof, and the case would have been proved as laid. The trial court there fore erred in'rejecting the amendment and thereafter in granting a nonsuit.
Judgment reversed.
MacIntyre, P. J., and Gardner, J., concur.