Case Name: Lewis Tumlin, plaintiff in error, vs. The Virginia Home Insurance Company, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1873-01
Citations: 48 Ga. 26
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lewis Tumlin, plaintiff in error, vs. The Virginia Home Insurance Company, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 22–24

Head Matter:
Lewis Tumlin, plaintiff in error, vs. The Virginia Home Insurance Company, defendant in error.
(Atlanta,
January Term, 1873.)
Award of Arbitrators — Exceptions—Amendments.—An award of arbitrators was, by order of the Court, entered on the minutes during the November term, 1871. At the same term, exceptions to the award were filed. No further action was taken at that term. At the ensuing April term, a demurrer to the exceptions was heard and sustained, and an order to that effect entered on the minutes. At the time of hearing the demurrer, leave was granted to defendant and time given to amend the exceptions. On the next day, the amendment was made and sworn to in open Court, though the amendment does not appear to have been then filed. On the 28th of June, the juries were discharged for the term, and the Court adjourned to the 26th of the ensuing August to hear motions, etc. On that day, the plaintiff moved for judgment on said award and for execution. Defendant objected, and the Court allowed the amended exceptions to be filed, and certifies to this Court that he “regarded the application for leave to amend as being in all the time, and why the order dismissing the exceptions was entered on the minutes, he did not remember:”
Held, That as it does not appear that plaintiff made any further motion or asked for a trial in the case before the discharge of the juries, and had notice of the intention of defendant to file the amended exceptions, and leave granted therefor, and the Judge, who knew all the facts, holding that the time he had granted had not expired, it was not error in the Court to allow them to be then filed.
Award. Exceptions. Amendment. Before Judge Hopkins. Eulton Superior Court. April Term, 1872.
On November 3, 1871, during the October term of the Superior Court of Fulton, there was returned to Court and entered upon the minutes an award in favor of the plaintiff, in the case of Lewis Tumlin vs. The Virginia Home Insurance Company. On the succeeding day, the defendant filed *exceptions. Thus the case stood until the 2d of May, 1872, during the April term of said court, when the same came on for a hearing upon a demurrer to the exceptions. The demurrer was sustained, and an order to that effect was entered upon the minutes. On June 28th, 1872, the juries were discharged for the term, and the Court adjourned until the 26th day of the ensuing August, at which time business not requiring juries was to be transacted. On the 27th day of August,' plaintiff moved for final judgment on the award and for execution. Defendant resisted the motion and asked leave to file amended exceptions. The Court refused to order final judgment, and plaintiff excepted.
To the bill of exceptions is attached the following note by the presiding Judge:
“When the demurrer to the exceptions was about to be or was disposed of, the counsel for defendant took time to amend his exceptions. Afterwards, I allowed the amended exceptions to be filed. I regarded the application for leave to amend as being in all the time. Why the order dismissing the exceptions was spread upon the minutes, I do not now remember.”
Pope & Brown, for plaintiff in error.
Peeples & Howell, for defendant.

Opinion:
Trippe, Judge.
From the judge's certificate, it is evident he did not intend or consider that the discharge of the juries should bar the defendant from the right to amend the objections, which he had granted, and which he considered as continuing "all the time." It was nearly two months from the time the leave to amend was granted until the juries were discharged. The plaintiff made no motion all this .time. The amendment was prepared and sworn to in open Court, the day leave was obtained, but it was not filed. Plaintiff had notice of the claim to amend, the order of the Court allowing the claim, but did not move until after the discharge of the juries.
*Under these circumstances, we do not think the Court erred in allowing the amended objections to be filed at the time the second motion was made. It might have been possibly more consistent with form for an order to have been taken, setting aside the order that was entered on the minutes. But the order allowing the amended objections to be filed virtually operated to supersede the former order, so far as it was necessary.
Judgment affirmed.