Brackin v. City of Bainbridge

Supreme Court of Georgia

Brackin v. City of Bainbridge

46 S.E. 828, 119 Ga. 603, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 294

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 3, 1904

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 S.E. 828 (Brackin v. City of Bainbridge) 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

Brackin v. City of Bainbridge, 46 S.E. 828, 119 Ga. 603, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 294 (Ga. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

Cobb, J.

A petition against a municipal corporation alleged that the defendant constructed a bridge or culvert in one of its streets in a careless and negligent way, and, after having so constructed it, negligently permitted the planks to rot and the bridge to get out of repair; and that “petitioner’s horse, while being ridden carefully over said bridge, fell through said bridge,” and was injured so badly that it had to be killed. An amendment was offered, alleging that “the said horse became frightened, and that the rider upou said horse was unable to manage him,” but did succeed in turning the horse upon the bridge, and would have passed over the same in safety but for the rotten plank in the bridge near the middle of the street. Held, that the amendment did not set forth a new cause of action, and should have been allowed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, O. J., absent. Albert JET. Russell and Hawes & Hawes, for defendant.

Amendment, new cause: Civil Code, § 5090; Ga. R. 82/207; 83/759; 86/624; 91/716; 93/511; 95/296, 407; 114/678; 75/648; 73/718; 70/193; 1.5 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. 427; 14 Enc. PI. & Pr. 241; 4 Houst. 548 ; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 1020 — 25. Defect not proximate cause of injury: Civil Code, § 3912; Ga. R. 103/847; 106/176; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 1015; 97 Mass. 258; 8 L. R. A. 82 ; 16 L. R. A. 106; 17 L. R. A. 217; 6 Am. Neg. R. 84, and cit.

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

Cobb, J.

A petition against a municipal corporation alleged that the defendant constructed a bridge or culvert in one of its streets in a careless and negligent way, and, after having so constructed it, negligently permitted the planks to rot and the bridge to get out of repair; and that “petitioner’s horse, while being ridden carefully over said bridge, fell through said bridge,” and was injured so badly that it had to be killed. An amendment was offered, alleging that “the said horse became frightened, and that the rider upou said horse was unable to manage him,” but did succeed in turning the horse upon the bridge, and would have passed over the same in safety but for the rotten plank in the bridge near the middle of the street. Held, that the amendment did not set forth a new cause of action, and should have been allowed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, O. J., absent. Albert JET. Russell and Hawes & Hawes, for defendant.

Amendment, new cause: Civil Code, § 5090; Ga. R. 82/207; 83/759; 86/624; 91/716; 93/511; 95/296, 407; 114/678; 75/648; 73/718; 70/193; 1.5 Am. & Eng. Ene. L. 427; 14 Enc. PI. & Pr. 241; 4 Houst. 548 ; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 1020 — 25. Defect not proximate cause of injury: Civil Code, § 3912; Ga. R. 103/847; 106/176; 2 Dill. Mun. Corp. 1015; 97 Mass. 258; 8 L. R. A. 82 ; 16 L. R. A. 106; 17 L. R. A. 217; 6 Am. Neg. R. 84, and cit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.E. 828, 119 Ga. 603, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brackin-v-city-of-bainbridge-ga-1904.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack