# Hopper v. Davidson County

> Tennessee Supreme Court · March 11, 1960 · 206 Tenn. 393

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778818

## Case

- **Full name:** E. T. Hopper and Mrs. Arena Anderson, a Partnership, D/B/A Hopper & Anderson Coal Company, v. Davidson County Et Al.
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 11, 1960
- **Citations:** 206 Tenn. 393; 10 McCanless 393; 333 S.W.2d 917; 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 374
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Burnett
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778818

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding under the broader discretion granted to the trial court prior to the present Rules that, where the denial of a pretrial motion to amend denies a person his day in court, the action is erroneous.

## Opinion text

On Petition to Rehear
Davidson County has filed a dignified, courteous and forceful petition to rehear in this cause.
After reading and re-reading this petition with exhibits filed thereto, we are more convinced than ever that the trial judge should have allowed the amendment to the declaration as shown in our original opinion. The *402 exhibits to this petition to rehear show that these parties had filed with the court a petition for a jury of inquest, setting forth the fact that these things were being taken by the right of eminent domain. This petition for an inquest was dismissed under the plea of the statute of limitations. Of course, these matters under these exhibits here filed are not for us, but they do show what we said in our original opinion, and make it more evident than ever that those things were before the trial judge and he should have allowed the motion to amend amplifying and fully setting forth the facts of the lawsuit.
The additional argument is likewise made that the suit here should be dismissed because the assignments of error were not filed in compliance with our rules. We see no reason, under this additional argument, to change what we said in the original opinion.
For the reasons herein expressed, the petition to rehear will be denied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9778818. Public record. Not legal advice.