Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Ga. 598

Rogers v. Solomons

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 15, 1855

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1855-04-15

In Equity, in Floyd Superior Court. Decisions by Judge Tripre, November Term, 1854. The facts of this case are fully set forth in 14th Gca. JR. p. 320, except that when Atkinson, administrator, &c. obtained the judgment against Rogers and the executors of Hargroves, the appeal was entered by the executors of Hargroves alone. It seemed, however, that all parties had acted on the opinion, that the appeal operated for all the defendants.

Decided 1855-04-15

¶1By the Court.

BenninG, J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3I shall first consider the case of Rogers against Solomons and others.

¶4In that case, the sole question is, whether Rogers should have been allowed to file the supplemental bill ?

¶5We think that if the allegations in the supplemental bill be true, equity is in that bill.

¶6And that being so, the supplemental bill ought to have been allowed, as a matter of course, unless some special reason existed to make the allowance of it improper.

¶7[1.] Did any such reason exist ? Perhaps there did until the passage of the Act of the last Legislature on the subject of amendments. (Pamph. 1853-'4, 48.) By that Act, parties, whether at Law or in Equity, may, in any stage of the cause, amend their pleadings in all respects, whether in matter of form or matter of substance.

¶8Now the difference between . a supplemental bill and an amendment to the bill, is, for all practical purposes, merely technical. Under the maxim, therefore, that Equity follows the Law, Courts of Equity ought, as to supplemental bills, to follow this Statute as to amendments.

¶9And, indeed, the matter of this supplemental bill is such matter as is suitable for introduction into the bill by way of amendment. (1 Daniel’s Ch. Pr. 510, 511.) And by the Statute aforesaid, the time for amending never going by, this • *600■matter, should this supplemental bill be refused, would, if the-plaintiff wished it, have to be introduced into the bill by way of amendment. To refuse the supplemental bill, therefore, would be merely to produce double trouble — additional ex■pense — more delay.

¶10We think the supplemental bill ought to have been allowed;, and so, that the judgment of the Court below, in thi3 case, ought to be reversed.

¶11[2.] And this, in effect, disposes of the case of Solomons, and others against Rogers; for if the supplemental bill had' been allowed, as it should have been, then the plaintiffs’ case-would have become such that the injunction should not be dissolved until the equity of that supplemental bill should have been sworn off. The supplemental bill would have made the-plaintiffs’ such' as to call for a new answer.

¶12We think, therefore, that it is well that the Court below' refused to dissolve the injunction.

/17/ga/598 · .json · Public domain