Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe

147 S.E. 397, 39 Ga. App. 400, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 333

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 5, 1929

Docket19230

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 S.E. 397 (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe) 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

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe, 147 S.E. 397, 39 Ga. App. 400, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the petition.

2. It was error requiring a new trial for the court to refuse to allow the defendant’s counsel to open and conclude the argument to the jury, where the defendant introduced no evidence and that introduced by the plaintiff did not demand the verdict in his favor. Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28 (5) (45 S. E. 258) ; Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 145 Ga. 559 (5) (89 S. E. 486); Fite v. Hooks, 34 Ga. App. 629 (130 S. E. 692). Of course, the rule laid down in Phillips v. Anderson, 34 Ga. App. 190 (1) (128 S. E. 922), and cit., as to what is required in order to obtain the opening and conclusion of the argument by an admission in the pleadings, has no application to the case at bar.

3. What occurred in the trial of the case subsequently to the refusal of the court to allow the defendant to open and conclude the argument was nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the petition.

2. It was error requiring a new trial for the court to refuse to allow the defendant’s counsel to open and conclude the argument to the jury, where the defendant introduced no evidence and that introduced by the plaintiff did not demand the verdict in his favor. Moore v. Carey, 116 Ga. 28 (5) (45 S. E. 258) ; Willett Seed Co. v. Kirkeby-Gundestrup Seed Co., 145 Ga. 559 (5) (89 S. E. 486); Fite v. Hooks, 34 Ga. App. 629 (130 S. E. 692). Of course, the rule laid down in Phillips v. Anderson, 34 Ga. App. 190 (1) (128 S. E. 922), and cit., as to what is required in order to obtain the opening and conclusion of the argument by an admission in the pleadings, has no application to the case at bar.

3. What occurred in the trial of the case subsequently to the refusal of the court to allow the defendant to open and conclude the argument was nugatory.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 S.E. 397, 39 Ga. App. 400, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-railroad-v-hogrefe-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack