15 S.E. 12 (Ga. 1892), Blair v. Central City St. R. Co.

Citation:15 S.E. 12, 88 Ga. 535
Opinion Judge:LUMPKIN, J.
Party Name:BLAIR et al. v. CENTRAL CITY ST. R. CO., (BRIGHT, Intervener.)
Attorney:Jas. L. Anderson, for plaintiff in error. Hardeman, Davis & Turner, for defendants in error.
Case Date:February 15, 1892
Court:Supreme Court of Georgia

Page 12

15 S.E. 12 (Ga. 1892)

88 Ga. 535

BLAIR et al.


CENTRAL CITY ST. R. CO., (BRIGHT, Intervener.)

Supreme Court of Georgia

February 15, 1892

Syllabus by the Court.

Where property is under the control of the court in the hands of a receiver, and a creditor of the defendant intervenes by petition pro interesse suo, the petition is amendable at any stage of the proceeding, so as to develop all the material facts out of which the substantial rights of the petitioner as a creditor arose. Where the claim set forth originally was a promissory note given by an officer of the corporation after the receiver was appointed, an amendment setting forth the consideration of the note, and the contract under which that consideration was realized by the company before the receiver was appointed, is allowable.

Error from superior court, Bibb county; A. L. MILLER, Judge.

Suit by Blair and others against the Central City Street Railroad Company. D. M. Bright intervened. On a judgment denying Bright's leave to amend his intervention he brings error. Reversed.

Jas. L. Anderson, for plaintiff in error.

Hardeman, Davis & Turner, for defendants in error.


Upon the petition of Blair et al. in behalf of themselves and such other creditors as might be made parties the property of the Central City Street Railroad Company was placed in the hands of a temporary receiver. Bright was made a party to the case on his own petition in the nature of an intervention, in which he alleged that the defendant was indebted to him upon a promissory note, the consideration of which, as recited therein, was "value received as commission on loan" to defendant. This note was executed and delivered to Bright after the appointment of the receiver, but was given for a debt which had accrued before that time. On the day of the hearing to determine whether or not a permanent receiver should be appointed, Bright offered to amend his intervention by alleging in detail the facts showing how his debt against the company was created, and that the note, when made, was simply an acknowledgment of a pre-existing debt, and given to liquidate the amount thereof. No formal action was then taken on this offered amendment, but it seems to have been treated as duly filed and made. The court passed an order discharging the temporary receiver, but allowing the petition to proceed as an...

To continue reading