Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Robertson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Robertson

141 S.E. 215, 37 Ga. App. 638, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 545

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 11, 1928

Docket18578

StatusPublished

This text of 141 S.E. 215 (Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Robertson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Robertson, 141 S.E. 215, 37 Ga. App. 638, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Bkoxlbs, O. J.

This was a suit for damages for the killing of two hound dogs. During the trial counsel for the defendant admitted that one of the dogs was killed by the defendant, but contended that it was an un[639]*639avoidable accident. He stated as to the other dog that he did not know whether the defendant killed it, but that if it did so, that killing also was an unavoidable accident. The judge in his charge instructed the jury as follows: “The defendant sets up and denies the killing of one of the dogs—admits the killing of one, but claims that it was an accident and that it is not liable for any damages to this plaintiff for the killing of either of the dogs in question.” Held, that the charge was error and prejudicial to the defendant, and another hearing of the case is required..

Decided January 11, 1928. McClure, Hale & McClure, Maddox, Maddox & Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. J. C. Townsend, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Lulte and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bkoxlbs, O. J.

This was a suit for damages for the killing of two hound dogs. During the trial counsel for the defendant admitted that one of the dogs was killed by the defendant, but contended that it was an un[639]*639avoidable accident. He stated as to the other dog that he did not know whether the defendant killed it, but that if it did so, that killing also was an unavoidable accident. The judge in his charge instructed the jury as follows: “The defendant sets up and denies the killing of one of the dogs—admits the killing of one, but claims that it was an accident and that it is not liable for any damages to this plaintiff for the killing of either of the dogs in question.” Held, that the charge was error and prejudicial to the defendant, and another hearing of the case is required..

Decided January 11, 1928. McClure, Hale & McClure, Maddox, Maddox & Mitchell, for plaintiff in error. J. C. Townsend, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Lulte and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E. 215, 37 Ga. App. 638, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-great-southern-railroad-v-robertson-gactapp-1928.