(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Attachment, § 351 * —when action ties on attachment bond. Action lies on an attachment bond to recover at least nominal damages, where the attachment suit was dismissed at the plaintiff’s cost, the bond providing that if attachment plaintiffs shall prosecute their suit with effect or in case of failure therein to pay costs and such damages as shall be awarded against them in any suit thereafter brought for wrongfully suing out the attachment, then the bond shall be mill and void.
2. Pleading, § 230 * —statute permitting amendments construed. Practice Act, ch. 110, § 39, J. & A. ¶ 8576, permitting amendments to be made on such terms as may be just and reasonable, does not permit the trial court in its discretion to deprive a party of a substantial right through defects or omissions in pleadings.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William C. Johns, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the April term, 1913.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 16, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Action by James Burbridge against John A. Howard and others to recover on an attachment bond. From a judgment in favor of the defendants entered upon a directed verdict, plaintiff appeals.
Williams & Williams and Buckingham & McDavid, for appellant.
Baldwin & Carey, Whitley & Fitzgerald and J. L. McLaughlin, for appellee’s.
Mr. Justice Creighton
delivered the opinion of the court.
*1863. Pleading, § 232 * —discretion as to allowance of amendments. Though the power to grant leave to amend pleadings is within the discretion of the court, such discretion must in all cases he reasonably exercised.
4. Appeal and error, § 1362 * —lohen refusal to permit amendment of declaration reversible error. In an action on an attachment bond, refusal of court to permit plaintiff to amend his declaration at the time of trial, held reversible error.