Case Name: STEELE v. GEORGIA IRON AND COAL COMPANY
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1906-02-19
Citations: 124 Ga. 957
Docket Number: 
Parties: STEELE v. GEORGIA IRON AND COAL COMPANY.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 124
Pages: 957–958

Head Matter:
STEELE v. GEORGIA IRON AND COAL COMPANY.
When this ease was before this court the first time (121 Ga. 459) it was; held that the original petition was “subject to demurrer,” but that the defect was cured by the amendments which had been tendered and allowed. Upon the trial of the cause, however, as the record discloses, there was no evidence to support the material and essential allegations in the amendments. It was, therefore, not error for the court to sustain a motion to nonsuit the case.
Argued January 19,
Decided February 19, 1906.
Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Dade superior court. March 22, 1905.
B. T. Erode and B. J. & J. McCamy, for plaintiff.
Watkins & Thompson and DuBignon & Alston, for defendant.

Opinion:
BeCK, J.
This case was before the Supreme Court at the, October term, 1904, and it was then held: "The original petition was no doubt subject to demurrer. As drawn it referred to defects which were apparently of a, kind open to the sight of the employee. Construing the petition against the pleader, it also indicated that, the periodical dimness of the light was that usual in arc lights, occasioned by the imperfect connection but naturally caused by the gradual consumption of the carbon. But these matters were cured by the positive allegations of the amendment, that the deceased did not know thereof, could not learn thereof, and that they were known to the company." 121 Ga. 459. When the case came on for trial in the court below there was an entire lack of evidence to support the essential averments which had been added to the petition by the amendments referred to, and which were necessary to make the petition good as against a general demurrer; and of course, in the absence of that evidence, the court did not err in sustaining the motion to nonsuit the plaintiff's case.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.