Rarden Mercantile Co. v. Whiteside
| Decision Date | 30 November 1905 |
| Citation | 39 So. 576,145 Ala. 617 |
| Parties | RARDEN MERCANTILE CO. v. WHITESIDE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; B. C. Jones, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Charlie Whiteside against the Rarden Mercantile Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Pinkney Scott, for appellant.
W. S Welch, for appellee.
This action was commenced against J. W. Rarden as sole defendant. Before the term at which the trial was had the plaintiff amended the complaint by adding the Rarden Mercantile Company, a corporation, as a party defendant. Both parties defendant appeared and filed pleas to the merits. On the trial, after the testimony was closed, the plaintiff, with leave of the court, again amended the complaint by striking out J. W. Rarden, the original defendant, as a party defendant, thus leaving the Rarden Mercantile Company the sole defendant in the action. After the last amendment was made the defendant corporation moved the court to discontinue the cause, on the ground, among others, that the amendment worked an entire change of parties defendant. The motion was overruled by the court, and the defendant duly reserved an exception to the ruling.
It has been many times ruled by this court that the statute of amendments (section 3331 of the Code) does not authorize an amendment as to parties, either plaintiff or defendant that works an entire change of parties. D. A. R. Co. v Mallon, 57 Ala. 168, and authorities there cited; S F. & M. I. Co. v. De Jarnett, 111 Ala. 248, 19 So. 995; Vinegar Bend Lumber Co. v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 131 Ala. 411, 30 So. 776; Steiner Bros. v Stewart, 134 Ala. 568, 33 So. 343. If, at the time the amendment adding the corporation as a party defendant was made, the plaintiff had amended by striking out J. W. Rarden as a party defendant, it would require no argument to demonstrate that there would have been wrought an entire change of parties defendant. Authorities supra. Can the postponement of the amendment until the testimony was closed relieve the case from the application of the principle of entire change of parties? If it can, then all that is necessary for a party to avoid the application of the principle would be to make the first amendment and bide his time for making the second, and the time at which the second amendment was made could not affect the case, so it was not simultaneous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Mills
... ... 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 ... ...
-
Humphrey v. Poss, 7 Div. 756.
... ... Dixie ... Construction [245 Ala. 13] Co., 216 Ala. 257, ... 113 So. 82; Rarden Mercantile Co. v. Whiteside, 145 ... Ala. 617, 39 So. 576. But in harmony with the current of ... ...
-
Braswell v. Brooks
...Great So. Ry. Co., 243 Ala. 31, 8 So.2d 266; Copeland v. Dixie Construction Co., 216 Ala., 257, 113 So. 82; Rarden Mercantile Co. v. Whiteside, 145 Ala. 617, 39 So. 576. But in harmony with the current of authority elsewhere (28 R.C.L. p. 824; 71 C.J. p. 974), this Court has often observed ......
-
Van Landingham v. Alabama Great Southern R. Co.
... ... parties, either plaintiff or defendant, that works an entire ... change of parties". Rarden Mercantile Company v ... Whiteside, 145 Ala. 617, 39 So. 576; Roth v ... Scruggs, 214 Ala. 32, ... ...