Court Opinion

ID: 9666252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:08:59.934875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:27.547342
License: Public Domain

HUMPHREYS, J.,
(concurring). While I concur in the conclusion reached by the majority, I have something to say on the motion to file an amended and supplemental answer to the original hill in this Court. And that is, although this Court has only appellate jurisdiction (T.C.A. sec. 16-408) and so cannot permit the filing of an amended and supplemental answer to an original hill here, we can achieve the same result in proper cases by remand under T.C.A. sec. 27-329.
And, except for the fact the construction of the second house cannot inure to the benefit of Stuyvesant to relieve it of its fixed contract obligation, a remand for an amendment of the nature sought might be in order.
PER CURIAM.