Barfield v. Southern Railway Co.
45 S.E. 282, 118 Ga. 256, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 518
Opinion
When this ease was here before (115 Ga. 724), it was held that the plaintifi was not entitled to recover, because it affirmatively appeared from his own testimony that he could by the exercise of ordinary care have avoided the injuries for which he sued. The evidence in the present case is substantially the same as that in the record of the previous case, and there-was therefore no error in granting a nonsuit.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Barfield v. Southern Railway Co., 45 S.E. 282, 118 Ga. 256, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 518 (Ga. 1903).
45 S.E. 282 (Barfield v. Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wittrup v. Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co.
226 N.W.2d 822 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1975)
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Sewell
196 S.E. 140 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1938)
Echols v. Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast Railroad
165 S.E. 484 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
City of Macon v. Jones
138 S.E. 283 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1927)
Browning v. Village of Cave Spring
67 S.E. 1045 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Howell
53 S.E. 577 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Steele v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
51 S.E. 438 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)