Court Opinion

ID: 9865665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:19:55.726674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:58.189990
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION ROE REHEARING.
In the motion for rehearing it is contended that the demurrers originally filed to the petition on August 30, 1947, were not renewed or insisted upon to the petition as amended. It is contended that, while the bill of exceptions shows that they were, the record in the case does not bear out this statement in the bill *795of exceptions, and that therefore the record prevails over the bill of exceptions. Counsel cite in support of their contentions: Powell v. Cheshire, 70 Ga. 357 (2-b); Livingston v. Barnett, 193 Ga. 640 (19 S. E. 2d, 385); Peoples Loan Company v. Allen, 199 Ga. 537; Silverman v. Alday, 200 Ga. 711 (38 S. E. 2d, 419). It will be noted that the demurrers, both general and special, were filed to the petition on August 30, 1947. The plaintiff filed an amendment on December 1, 1947. After the amendment was filed and on the last page of the record and the last item in the record, this appears: “The plaintiff, having amended his petition, the within demurrer is overruled, this December 1, 1947. [Signed] J. F. Kelly, J.C.C.F.C.” Upon a careful reading of the opinions in the cases cited above, it is clear that the facts of those cases differentiate themselves from those of the instant case. It is clear to us, for the reasons given in the original opinion in the instant case, that the original petition set out no cause of action, and there was nothing by which to amend. The case which the movant discusses more at length than any other cases upon which he relies is Silverman v. Alday, supra. In that case, at page 713, the court—-after reciting the proposition that the bill of exceptions stated, “whereupon the plaintiff offered an amendment to his petition, which was allowed and filed, and the defendant thereupon renewed his said demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition as amended,” and then dealing with the exceptions pendente lite—said that such exceptions recite that the “court then and there entered upon said demurrer a judgment and order overruling the same, to which said judgment the defendant excepted.” The Supreme Court then immediately said: “The transcript of the record as originally brought to this court did not contain either -a renewal of the demurrer to the petition .as amended, or any judgment overruling the demurrer.” (Italics ours.) The Supreme Court then said that it called upon the clerk of the court below to send up the proceedings in the record—that is, the judgment on'the demurrer and the exceptions pendente lite, or a certificate that no such proceedings appeared of record. Such are by no means the facts here. The judgment on the demurrer in the instant case appears, as we have stated, in the record and not only in the bill of exceptions. Therefore it clearly appears that the vice there does not appear here. Respecting the ruling in Livingston *796v. Barnett, supra, it is our opinion, according to our view, that it does not require a different result in- the instant case; for it is clear, according to our way of thinking, that the amendment in the instant case did not change the original petition in material respects. It is only an elaboration to graft on to dead wood.

Rehearing denied.