"Where the relief sought by the cross petition is not germane to the main action, the dismissal of the main action carries the cross action with it." Collier v. DeJarnette Supply Co., 194 Ga. 129, 131 ( 20 S.E.2d 925). In the present case the dismissal of the petition carries with it the answer and cross bill of the defendant.

In State v. Callaway, 152 Ga. 871 ( 111 S.E. 563), it was said that a cross-petition seeking to introduce new and distinct matters is subject to dismissal on demurrer. The same rule is stated in Johnson v. Stancliff, 113 Ga. 886 ( 39 S.E. 296); Wood v. Hayes, 189 Ga. 658 ( 7 S.E.2d 256); Collier v. DeJarnette Supply Co., 194 Ga. 129 ( 20 S.E.2d 925); and Lankford v. Milhollin, 204 Ga. 193, 197 ( 48 S.E.2d 729). Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the defendant's answer, being entirely separate and distinct from the issue made by the petition — that of mental capacity to contract — and being wholly foreign to any issue made by the plaintiff, were properly stricken on motion.

Johnson v. Stancliff, 113 Ga. 886 ( 39 S.E. 296). See also Bank of Soperton v. Holland, 142 Ga. 796 ( 83 S.E. 782); State of Georgia v. Callaway, 152 Ga. 871 ( 111 S.E. 563); Wood v. Hayes, 189 Ga. 658 ( 7 S.E.2d 256); Usry v. Hines-Yelton Lumber Co., 176 Ga. 660 ( 168 S.E. 249); Collier v. DeJarnette Supply Co., 194 Ga. 129 ( 20 S.E.2d 925). In the present case the defendant was called upon by the petition to assert whatever claim of right, if any, she had to the premises sued for. Her reply, as a creditor of the plaintiff's intestate, that she had no interest in the property sought to be recovered, but that she was entitled to have a judgment for her debt, was certainly not responsive to the petition, had not the slightest bearing upon or relation to the issue in controversy, and afforded no basis for any prayer for counter-relief against the plaintiff in this case.

A cross-action which merely seeks to introduce new and distinct matter not germane to the original issue should be stricken on demurrer. Josey v. Rogers, 13 Ga. 478 (5); Johnson v. Stancliff, 113 Ga. 886 (1) ( 39 S.E. 296); Peterson v. Lott, 137 Ga. 179, 180 ( 73 S.E. 15); Atlanta Northern Ry. Co. v. Harris, 147 Ga. 214, 218 ( 93 S.E. 210); Usry v. Hines-Yelton Lumber Co., 176 Ga. 660 (2a) ( 168 S.E. 249); Collier v. DeJarnette Supply Co., 194 Ga. 129, 131 ( 20 S.E.2d 925). 3.

The question here is not whether the subject-matter sought to be introduced is germane to the original suit, although that frequently is made the test. See Collier v. DeJarnette Supply Co., 194 Ga. 129 ( 20 S.E.2d 925). The pleading here challenged exhibits a situation where, in settling certain issues involved in the original suit, the parties made an agreement which, so far as it appears, embodied an entirely new covenant. While it is said that the suit is still pending, never having been dismissed, and the defendant's present action is denominated by him a "cross-bill in said pending suit," it can not be maintained as a cross-action, in that at the time the latter was filed certain of the issues in the original suit had been settled by the parties.