Court Opinion

ID: 9567180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:50:12.11499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:22.227929
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Clark, Judge.
Appellant’s counsel contends the case of Bower v. Thomas, 69 Ga. 47, as the earliest full bench *610decision is controlling and requires a reversal. This 1882 decision is not applicable to the present case. The reasons are: (1) There, a substitution of a party defendant erroneously sued was sought, whereas, here, a party is added to the suit, one alleged to be within the master-servant relationship to the original defendants; (2) in 1882 Georgia law did not provide a procedure such as now exists which permits the adding or dropping of parties "by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just” (Code Ann. § 81A-121); and (3) the Supreme Court’s opinion itself commented at p. 50 that its ruling was based on "circumstances like these” which indicated it intended its ruling to be limited to the facts of that case. Since those facts show the passage of more than two years between the date of the substitution of the defendant in February 1879 and service upon him in March 1881 one readily recognizes the special circumstances which influenced the court. Contrast that dilatoriness with the diligence shown in the case sub judice where the fact of a master-servant situation was learned during its proceedings and service promptly made without any delay upon Humble Oil as an added party (not substituted). See also Ellis v. McCrary, 52 Ga. App. 583 (183 SE 823) and Waldon v. Maryland Cas. Co., 155 Ga. 76, 84 (116 SE 828).

Judgment adhered to.

Hall, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.