Crawford v. Mills
Decision Date | 29 June 1918 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 803 |
Citation | 79 So. 456,202 Ala. 62 |
Parties | CRAWFORD v. MILLS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.
Action by W.H. Mills against J.W. Crawford. From adverse judgment defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, Act of April 18, 1911, p. 449. Affirmed.
W.L Lee, of Columbia, and B.G. Farmer and T.M. Espy, both of Dothan, for appellant.
W.O Long, of Abbeville, W.R. Chapman, of Dothan, and H.L. Martin of Ozark, for appellee.
The original complaint, filed July 26, 1915, was against W.G. Creel, J.W. Crawford, R.K. Stokes, and J.B. Long, as principal and sureties, on a bond given by the principal to conduct a public warehouse for the storage of cotton, etc., for compensation, in accordance with section 6123 et seq. of the Code. The breach of the bond averred was the failure and refusal, after due demand, to deliver seven bales of cotton to plaintiff, transferee of warehouse receipts issued to Mary C. Davis for said cotton, stored by her with the Farmers' Warehouse during the time it was operated by Creel. On August 16, 1916, after the several defendants had been served with copy of the summons and complaint, amendment was made by striking as parties defendant Creel, Stokes, and Long, and by adding counts 2 to 6, inclusive. Whereupon defendant Crawford moved to strike the complaint as amended, which motion being denied, he moved the court to enter a discontinuance of the cause. The first twelve assignments of error challenge the court's ruling in permitting the amendment, denying the motion to strike, and refusing to enter a discontinuance.
1. Appellant's insistence is that, as the several parties were sued in the same action, and summons and complaint was served upon all of them, and no personal defenses were interposed when plaintiff amended by striking from the complaint all defendants save J.W. Crawford, the remaining defendant took timely advantage of such action by moving that a discontinuance of the cause be entered. This would have been the effect of such an amendment, under a long line of decisions in this state following the rule of the common law. 123 Cyc. 804; 14 Cyc. 411; Will's Gould on Pl. pp. 387, 455; Smith v. Cobb, 1 Stew. 62; Adkins v. Allen, 1 Stew. 130; Slade v. Street, 77 Ala. 578; Torrey v. Forbes, 94 Ala. 135, 10 So. 320; Hayes v. Dunn, 136 Ala. 528, 34 So. 944; Evans Marble Co. v. McDonald & Co., 142 Ala. 130, 37 So. 830; Ashby Brick Co. v. Walker Co., 151 Ala. 272, 44 So. 96; Long v. Gwin, 188 Ala. 196, 66 So. 88; Beecher v. Henderson, 4 Ala.App. 543, 58 So. 805; King v. Gibbs, 12 Ala.App. 504, 67 So. 757; Plunkett v. Dendy, 197 Ala. 262, 72 So. 525.
This common-law rule finding recognition in the statutes (1852, § 2149; 1867, § 2545; 1876, § 2911; 1886, § 2607; 1896, § 42; 1907, § 2502) was abolished by the remedial procedure of September 18, 1915, which was:
Gen.Acts 1915, p. 605.
See ( Plunkett v. Dendy, 197 Ala. 262, 72 'South. 525; Beltman v. B'ham P. & G. Co., 185 Ala. 313, 64 So. 600; Brown v. Loeb, 177 Ala. 106, 58 So. 330.
The statute applies to pending causes, as to amendments made after its adoption. Remedial statutes have been given like application by this court. Walden v. Leach, 78 So. 381; Coker v. Fountain, 75 So. 471; T.R. N. Co. v. Grantland, 75 So. 283; Poull & Co. v. Foy-Hays Co., 159 Ala. 453, 48 So. 785; Jefferson County Sav. Bank v. Barbour, 191 Ala. 238, 68 So. 43. There was no discontinuance by striking several of the parties defendant to the original complaint after service was perfected on all of them. No entire change of parties was made by the amendment made under section 5367 of the Code. Plunkett v. Dendy, 197 Ala. 262, 72 So. 525; Smith v. Yearwood, 197 Ala. 680, 73 So. 384; Rarden Merc. Co. v. Whiteside, 145 Ala. 617, 39 So. 576; Vinegar Bend Co. v. Chicago Co., 131 Ala. 411, 30 So. 776; Evans Co. v. McDonald, 142 Ala. 130, 37 So. 830; Head v. J.M. Robinson, Norton & Co., 191 Ala. 352, 67 So. 976.
2. Did the court commit reversible error in permitting plaintiff's amendments by the additional counts? The cause of action finding expression in the original count was the failure of Creel to deliver to plaintiff the cotton evidenced by the duly transferred warehouse receipts, with the liability of the other defendants (of whom appellant was one) by reason of their suretyship on Creel's warehouseman's bond. Appellant's counsel say, of the several counts:
"The complaint as amended consisted of six counts, one of which was against Crawford on the bond executed by him, and the other five (counts) against him for his wrongful act in converting or failing to deliver the cotton."
The recent statute permits amendments, "whilst the cause is in progress," of all and every imperfection and defect of form, on motion of the party, without costs and without delay, "unless injustice will thereby be done to the opposite party," and the court must permit the amendment of the complaint "by striking out or adding new parties plaintiff, or by striking out or adding new parties defendant, or by striking out or adding new counts or statements of the cause of action, which could have been included in the original complaint or plea, and such amendment shall relate back to
the commencement of the suit, and it shall not be held that such new counts or statements of the cause of action relate to new or other causes of action, so long as they refer to the same transaction, property and title and parties as the original, and where this is not apparent on the averments of the pleading, it shall be a question of fact for the jury." Code 1907, § 5367. Was injustice done the opposite party by the amendments allowed and made? Did the amendments refer to the same transaction, property, title, and parties as were the subject-matter of the original count? Roden v. Capehart, 195 Ala. 29, 70 So. 756, and authorities collected.
In Hanchey v. Brunson, 181 Ala. 453, 61 So. 258, treating of the statute, and of an amendment that predicated the right of action upon a prosecution commenced before a different officer from the one named in the original complaint, Justice Anderson said:
Georgia Cotton Co. v. Lee, 196 Ala. 599, 72 So. 158.
The question of amendments made under section 3331 of the Code of 1896 was thoroughly discussed in Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Foshee, 125 Ala. 199, 27 So. 1006, where are collected and reviewed the cases theretofore decided on the point by this court. The Chief Justice said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster
... ... opportunity for amendment, if the plea be such as is subject ... to amendment. Huntsville Knitting Mills v. Butner, ... 200 Ala. 288, 76 So. 54; Powell v. Crawford, 110 ... Ala. 294, 18 So. 302; Murphy v. Farley, 124 Ala ... 279, 27 So. 442; ... ...
-
Walker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
...by the foregoing decisions, and was expressly overruled in Strickland v. Wedgeworth, 154 Ala. 654, 45 So. 653. See Crawford v. Mills, 202 Ala. 62, 79 So. 456. intestate was killed at Dora by a train of the railway company operated by defendant Houppert as locomotive engineer. The train was ......
-
Wright v. McCord
... ... The ... right of amendment by striking parties defendant is provided ... by statute. Gen.Acts, 1915, p. 605; Crawford v ... Mills, 202 Ala. 62, 79 So. 456; Plunkett v ... Dendy, 197 Ala. 262, 72 So. 525. That defendant Walker ... was stricken as a party ... ...
-
Haynes v. Phillips
...denied in 217 U.S. 606, 30 S.Ct. 696, 54 L.Ed. 900 (amendments from statute of one jurisdiction to that of another); Crawford v. Mills, 202 Ala. 62, 79 So. 456 (amendment changing parties and form of action); Ballenger v. Ballenger, 205 Ala. 599, 88 So. 826; L. & N. R. Co. v. Holmes, 205 Al......