Exposition Cotton Mills v. Western & A. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 October 1889
• Citation: 10 S.E. 113,83 Ga. 441
• Parties: EXPOSITION COTTON MILLS v. WESTERN & A. R. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

10 S.E. 113

83 Ga. 441

EXPOSITION COTTON MILLS v. WESTERN & A. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 9, 1889

Error from city court of Atlanta; VAN EPPS, Judge.

Action by Exposition Cotton Mills against the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company. For former report, see 7 S.E. 916.

B. F Abbott, for plaintiff in error.

Julius L. Brown, for defendant in error.

BLANDFORD J.

1. The plaintiff brought his action against the defendant, in which he alleged that he had sustained certain damages to machinery by reason of the carelessness and negligence of the agents and servants of the defendant. When this case was here before at the October term, 1888, it was then held (81 Ga. 522, 7 S.E. 916) that the evidence offered by the defendant, to the effect that the damage done to the plaintiff's property occurred upon a connecting line of railroad before the same had been received by the defendant, was admissible as a defense to the action; there being no allegation in the declaration at that time that the defendant had received the property as in good order. The case being reversed, and coming on for another trial before the court below, the plaintiff offered an amendment to the declaration to the effect that the defendant had received the property from a connecting road as in good order. This amendment was demurred to upon the ground that it was a new and distinct cause of action. The court sustained the demurrer, and the amendment was rejected, and this ruling is excepted to, and constitutes one of the errors complained of in this case. Section 3480 of the Code provides that no amendment adding a new and distinct cause of action shall be allowed, unless expressly provided for by law. The original declaration was brought by the plaintiff for damages done to the plaintiff's property by the defendant, and was a good and sufficient declaration and, upon proper proof, the plaintiff could have recovered thereon. But the amendment offered and rejected by the court seeks to recover from the defendant by virtue of a statute of this state, (Code, § 2084,) which statute provides that "when there are several connecting railroads under different companies, and the goods are intended to be transported over more than one railroad, each company shall be responsible only to its own terminus, and until delivery to the connecting road. The last company which has received the goods as 'in good order' [the words 'in good...