Case Name: James A. Story et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Flournoy, McGehee & Company, defendants in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1875-07
Citations: 55 Ga. 56
Docket Number: 
Parties: James A. Story et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Flournoy, McGehee & Company, defendants in error.
Judges: Bleckley, Judge, concurred, but furnished no written opinion. .
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 56–66

Head Matter:
James A. Story et al., plaintiffs in error, vs. Flournoy, McGehee & Company, defendants in error.
1. The taking of personal security on a note formoney and supplies furnished by a factor with which to make a crop, secured by the statutory lien, did not operate as a waiver of such lien.
2, A second counter-affidavit to an execution based on the foreclosure of a factor’s lien cannot be filed without an allegation that the facts therein set forth were unknown to the defendant at the time the first was filed.
3. Such counter-affidavit, which was the foundation of a legal proceeding, cannot be amended after it has been returned into court, either by the filing of a new affidavit or otherwise, so as to change the issue thereby presented.
Jackson, Judge, dissenting.
1. “Pleadings are the altercations between the plaintiff and the defendant,” and in cases of the summary foreclosure of a crop lien, the affidavits are the only altercations between the plaintiff and the defendant, and therefore the only pleadings. Hence the affidavit of the defendant is his plea, and he may amend it, as a matter of right, at any stage of the cause.
2. If the defendant, when regularly sued and served, with six months for preparation for trial allowed him, may, then, at any stage of the trial, amend his pleas, a fortiori in a summary proceeding begun by the seizure of his property and for trial at the first term, he should be allowed the right to amend.
3. Nor does it alter his right to amend, that, in a case like this, his plea is an affidavit; all pleas to bring parties to an issue of fact must be sworn to; if this defendant had been sued by the regular process of the court and had put in the same plea which his counter-affidavit makes here, it must have been sworn to by him, yet he could have amended that, so also may he amend this.
4. Section 3504 of our Code provides that “an affidavit which is the foundation of a legal proceeding cannot be amended except expressly pro vided by law,” therefore by a weighty negative pregnant, by a very strong implication, it affirms that an affidavit which is not the foundation of a legal proceeding may be amended without ail express provision of law— that is, under the general liberal law of the amendment of pleadings, if it be in the nature of a plea; the affidavit of the defendant here is not the foundation of a legal proceeding, but it is the defense to the plaintiff’s affidavit of foreclosure, which latter affidavit is the foundation of the suit; hence, while the affidavit of the plaintiff could not be amended, because it is such foundation and no express law authorizes it to be amended, the counter-affidavit of the defendant may be amended under the general law, because it is not the foundation of a legal proceeding, and needs no such express provision to authorize an amendment to it.
5. The distinction is broad between an affidavit of illegality to an execution after the defendant has been heard on his defense to the original cause of action, and this affidavit which enables him to be heard for the first time in court; and the statute, which puts the defendant in illegality on terms before he can amend his affidavit, has no application, either in letter or spirit, to the defense to this summary proceeding.
6. A plea to the effect that the lien on the crop of 1874 was not for money, nor supplies, nor necessaries, to make that crop, but was a lien given to pay an old debt due the preceding year, is a good plea in bar of the proceeding to foreclose it, and should have been allowed when offered as an amendment before the concluding counsel for the plaintiff had opened his argument
Factor’s lien. Waiver. Illegality. Amendment. Before Judge James Johnson. Marion Superior Court. April Term, 1875.
Reported in the opinions.
B. B. Hinton & Son; E. H. Worrill, for plaintiffs in error.
E. B. Hatcher; Blandford & Garrard, for defendants.

Opinion:
Warner, Chief Justice.
This was a proceeding instituted by the plaintiffs as factors and commission merchants, against the defendants for the foreclosure of a crop lien for money advanced by the plaintiffs to make it, under the provisions of the 1978 th section of the Code. The defendant, J. A. Story, filed a counter-affidavit alleging that the amount claimed by plaintiffs was not due, and that the plaintiffs having accepted security for the money advanced, it was an abandonment of their lien. The papers were returned to the superior court, and on the trial of the issue thus formed between the parties, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs. The defendants made a motion for a new trial on the several grounds set forth in the record, which was overruled by the court, and defendants excepted.
There was no error in the chai'ge of the court that the taking personal security on the note, did not operate as a waiver of the lien.
It appears from the record, that after the argument of the case had been concluded, the defendant, J. A. Story, offered to amend the issue which had been made by his former counter-affidavit, by offering another affidavit (having given plaintiffs' counsel notice before the conclusion of the argument that he would do so,) to the effect, that the consideration of .the note, the foundation of the plaintiffs' action, was not for money or supplies furnished to enable him to make a crop, but was for a note which one Toliver held against him, which was due in 1873. The court refused to allow the issue to be amended by the additional affidavit thus offered, and this'is one of the errors assigned in the motion for the new trial. By the 1991st section of the Code, it is declared that if the defendant in such lien execution contests the amount, or justice of the claim, or the existence of such lien, he may file his affidavit of the fact, setting forth the ground of such denial, which affidavit shall form an issue to be returned to the court and tried as other causes. The defendant does not allege in his second affidavit which be offered to file, that the facts stated therein were not known to him when he filed his first counter-affidavit and made up the issue between him and the plaintiffs. Although this is not an affidavit of illegality, yet, the same rule in principle applicable to a second affidavit of illegality, would seem to be applicable to the defendant's second affidavit in this ease. But it is said the defendant lias never had his day in court, never had an opportunity to plead to the plaintiffs'-claim until the execution was levied on bis property. The reply is, that the statute points out the mode and manner in which he shall plead and make his defense by filing his counter-affidavit, and that shall form an issue between him and the plaintiff to be tried as other causes. What issue is to be tried as other causes? Most obviously,-¿Ae issue made by the defendant's counter-affidavit returned into court, and not an issue which he may thereafter make by filing another affidavit. Besides, to allow a defendant in this class of cases, to file a second affidavit and form a neto issue, without alleging that the facts set forth in the second affidavit were not known to him when he made his first counter-affidavit, would be to defeat the object of the statute, which was intended to give to plaintiffs a summary remedy to collect this class of debts. If the defendant shall be allowed at the trial of the issue formed on his first counter-affidavit, to surprise the plaintiffs by making a new issue by filing a second affidavit containing facts well known to him when he filed his first affidavit, and thereby force the plaintiffs to a continuance of the case to meet that new issue, one of the main objects of the statute, will be defeated.
Besides, the practical effect of the motion made by the defendant was to amend his first counter-affidavit, which was the foundation of his defense, and the proceeding which was returned into court for trial. The 3504th section of the Code declares that an affidavit which is the foundation of a legal proceeding cannot be amended, except expressly provided by law. The first counter-affidavit made by the defendant was the foundation of the legal proceeding which was returned into court for trial, and there is no law of which we are advised that provides for th.e amendment of that affidavit after it has been returned into court, either by the filing of a new affidavit or otherwise, so as to alter or change the issue made by it. There was no error in the refusal of the court to allow the amendment offered.
Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
Bleckley, Judge, concurred, but furnished no written opinion. .