Norris v. Rawlings
| Decision Date | 24 September 1912 |
| Citation | 76 S.E. 60,138 Ga. 711 |
| Parties | NORRIS. v. RAWLINGS. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Where the petition alleged that the plaintiff, as landlord, furnished to his tenant, the defendant, given quantities of corn, cotton seed, and fodder, upon the agreement of the defendant to return in kind like quantities of such products at the termination of the tenancy, whenever it should occur, the action based upon such contract, brought within four years after the termination of the tenancy, was not barred by the statute of limitations.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Limitation of Actions, Cent. Dig. §§ 240-253; Dec. Dig. § 46.*]
The disallowance of an amendment to an auswer is not ground for new trial.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see New Trial, Cent. Dig. §§ 24-29; Dec. Dig. § 18.*]
Admissions, beneficial to the plaintiff and material to his case, contained in a proffered amendment to the defendant's answer, were admissible as evidence in behalf of the plaintiff, although the offered amendment was disallowed, and the petition waived discovery. See Printup v. Patton & Jackson, 91 Ga. 422, 8 S. E. 311, et seq.; Railroad v. Guilford. 114 Ga. 627, 49 S. E. 794, cited in Mims v. Jones, 135 Ga. 541, 69 S. E. 824.
Other assignments of error upon the admissibility of evidence were likewise without merit, and do not require any discussion.
The instructions to the jury, to which exceptions were taken, were not erroneous for any reason assigned.
The foregoing rulings dispose of all the exceptions insisted upon in the brief of counsel for plaintiff in error.
Error from Superior Court, Washington County; B. F. Walker, Judge.
Action by William Rawlings against J. F. Norris, administrator. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Gross & Swint, of Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.
Evans & Evans, of Sandersville, and Hines & Jordan, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
FISH, C. J. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
*.For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep'r Indexes
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoffman v. Franklin Motor Car Co
...action of the court in directing such finding should not be reversed because of the error to which we have referred. See Norris v. Rawliugs, 138 Ga. 711 (3), 76 S. E. 60. Our decision necessarily involves a holding that the defendant's first amendment should be construed as admitting the ex......
-
Hoffman v. Franklin Motor Car Co.
...action of the court in directing such finding should not be reversed because of the error to which we have referred. See Norris v. Rawlings, 138 Ga. 711 (3), 76 S.E. 60. decision necessarily involves a holding that the defendant's first amendment should be construed as admitting the executi......
- Norris v. Rawlings