Cagle v. Shepard
This text of 57 S.E. 946 (Cagle v. Shepard) 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.
Opinion
We are compelled to reverse the judgment on account of a small technical defect, appearing in the record and properly brought to the attention of the court. The defendant, [193]*193Shepard, sued Cagle for injuries received through Cagle’s running into him with an automobile. Shepard recovered a small verdict; and the evidence, though conflicting, was such as to justify it. The plaintiff, however, in setting out in his petition the elements of his damages, failed to do so with sufficient definiteness. In the 3d paragraph he alleges that he was, at the time of the injury, employed as a gas-fitter, "with wages of-dollars per month;” in the 31st paragraph that "as a consequence of said injuries, plaintiff lost- dollars for time away from his work;” and in the 30th paragraph that he incurred an expense of "several dollars” for medicines. The defendant pointed out the defects by timely and appropriate special demurrers, which were overruled, and the plaintiff did not offer to amend. To the overruling of these demurrers the defendant filed exceptions, preserved them, and insists on them in this court We dislike to reverse a judgment and send a ease back for new trial for such trivial technical defects, but, under repeated .well-settled rulings of the Supreme Court, we are compelled to do so. Warren v. Powell, 132 Ga. 4; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Griffith, 111 Ga. 565 (3); Mayor of Eastman v. Cameron, 111 Ga. 113. Nor can we question the propriety of the able counsel for the plaintiff in error insisting upon the point; for before we became judges the members of the court practiced as attorneys, and it will be seen from an inspection of the report in the case first cited above that one member of this court, in his then capacity as a lawyer, made the point equally trivial and technical upon which the judgment in that case was reversed. Be that as it may, the law is imperative, and the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
57 S.E. 946, 1 Ga. App. 192, 1907 Ga. App. LEXIS 187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cagle-v-shepard-gactapp-1907.