The Exposition Cotton Mills v. The Western and Atlantic Railroad Company

Supreme Court of Georgia1889-10-09

83 Ga. 441

Summary · law.co

Holding. The amendment seeking to impose statutory liability was properly rejected as introducing a new cause of action; however, the trial court erred in entering a judgment for the defendant and should instead have entered a judgment of nonsuit. The judgment is affirmed with directions to set aside the verdict and enter nonsuit.

Exposition Cotton Mills sued Western and Atlantic Railroad for damages to machinery caused by the railroad's negligence. The case had been tried once before, and on remand, the plaintiff sought to amend its declaration to allege that the defendant railroad had received the property in good condition from a connecting railroad. The trial court rejected this amendment on the grounds that it introduced a new and distinct cause of action.

The state's code prohibited amendments that added new and separate causes of action. The court found that the original declaration was based on common law liability for negligence, while the proposed amendment sought to impose liability under a specific state statute governing responsibility among connecting railroads. Because these rested on fundamentally different legal theories, the amendment improperly introduced a new cause of action and was correctly rejected.

However, the court found that the trial judge erred in directing a verdict for the defendant. Since the plaintiff had admitted that damage occurred on another company's line before delivery to the defendant, the proper remedy was a nonsuit rather than a judgment for the defendant.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether an amendment changing the legal basis of liability from common law negligence to statutory liability constitutes a new and distinct cause of action
Proper disposition when a plaintiff admits facts defeating its own claim

Procedural posture

The case came before the appellate court for the second time after remand following reversal at the October 1888 term, with exceptions taken to the rejection of an amended declaration and to a directed verdict for the defendant.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Blandford, Justice.

The plaintiff brought its action against the defendant, in which it alleged that it had sustained certain damages to machineiy, 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) 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 defence 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.

1. 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 he 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 order, it will he observed, being in quotation marks,) shall be responsible to .the consignee for any damage, open or concealed, done to the goods, and such companies shall settle among themselves the question of ultimate liability.” The liability of this company, according to this amendment, arises alone by virtue of this statute. The original declaration showed the liability of the company to be a common law liability; and now it is proposed, by the introduction of this amendment, to sue the company upon a statutory liability. We are therefore of the opinion that this amendment introduced a new and distinct cause of action from that embraced in the original declaration, which, we have seen under the code, cannot be allowed in this State. See the case of Parmelee v. Savannah, Florida & Western Rwy Co., 78 Ga. 239.

2. The next error assigned is the decision and judgment of the court in directing a verdict for the defendant and judgment thereon. We think this was error. As the case then stood, the court should have awarded a nonsuit. The plaintiff admitted that the’ damage to the property was done on a line of road belonging to another company before it was received by the defendant company. So we affirm the judgment with direction to the court below to cause the verdict and judgment to he set aside, and enter a judgment of nonsuit in place thereof. Judgment affirmed.