Barrett v. Western & Atlantic Railroad

85 S.E. 1016, 144 Ga. 47, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 43
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedAugust 14, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 1016 (Barrett v. Western & Atlantic Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barrett v. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 85 S.E. 1016, 144 Ga. 47, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 43 (Ga. 1915).

Opinion

Evans, P. J.

1. On the trial of a suit to recover damages alleged to have been caused by fire originating from sparks negligently emitted from the defendant’s locomotive, the plaintiff as a witness was asked how much insurance he had collected from the burned property. Objection was made to his answering the question; and counsel for the defendant stated that he wished to make the point whether the plaintiff could recover of the railroad company all of his loss, in addition to the amount he had received from the insurance company, and [48]*48wished to have a review of the decisions on that subject. The judge replied: “I will let him state the amount, and charge the jury that it has nothing to do with it.” The witness answered that the property destroyed was worth $6,855.73, upon which he had collected $2,509 insurance. The judge did not instruct the jury as he stated he would do, but did' instruct them that, if the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the measure of damages would be the full amount of his loss. Held, that it was erroneous to admit testimony that the plaintiff had received money from an insurance company on account of the destruction of the property by fire. City of Rome v. Rhodes, 134 Ga. 650 (68 S. E. 330). On the foregoing facts the error was prejudicial.

August 14, 1915. Action for damages. Before Judge Fite. Whitfield superior court. February 2, 1914. W. G. Martin and W. E. Mann, for .plaintiff. Tye, Peeples & Jordan and Maddox, McCamy & Shumate, for defendant.

2. Other charges complained of, though not strictly accurate, were not harmful to the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

A. H. Friedman, Inc. v. Augusta Burglar Alarm Co.
368 S.E.2d 534 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1988)
Polito v. Holland
365 S.E.2d 273 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1988)
COOPER BY AND THROUGH COOPER v. Aplin
523 So. 2d 339 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co v. Hilley
121 Ga. App. 196 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
CINCINNATI, NO &C. R. CO. v. Hilley
173 S.E.2d 242 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Thompson v. Milam
154 S.E.2d 721 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Render v. Jones
123 S.E.2d 196 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Stiles
60 S.E.2d 815 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Hollomon v. Hopson
166 S.E. 45 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E. 1016, 144 Ga. 47, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-western-atlantic-railroad-ga-1915.