Carden v. Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Carden v. Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Co.

99 S.E. 218, 23 Ga. App. 685, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 290

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 7, 1919

Docket10119

StatusPublished

This text of 99 S.E. 218 (Carden v. Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Co.) 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

Carden v. Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Co., 99 S.E. 218, 23 Ga. App. 685, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 290 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, P. J.

“In the absence of any testimony at the trial under review that the engines of the defendant company were equipped with' proper spark-arresters, the various circumstances in proof were sufficient to require a submission to the jury of the issue whether the fire which destroyed the plaintiff’s property was caused by the negligence of the defendant company.” Jarrell v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 21 Ga. App. 415 (3) (94 S. E. 648). Under this ruling and the facts of the present case, after the allowance of the amendment to the petition, the court erred in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur. Cited in the brief for plaintiff:

Ga. Rep. 90/11; 101/751; 113/338; 114/315; 135/400, 406; 138/440; 139/367-70; 139/408; 141/590; Ga. App. R. 11/483, 531, 790; 20/354; 31/415, 814, 818; 95 S. E. (N. C.) 175; 95 S. E. (N. C.) 490; 75 S. E. (Va.) 183; 163 Ky. 469; 35 Okla. 754; 97 Ark. 54; 153 N. C. 79; 184 Mich. 375; 173 Mo. App. 579; 148 Ky. 345; 111 Maine, 591; 143 Mo. App. 557;164 App. Div. (N. Y.) 431; 135 S. W. 70. 114 Ga. 713, 145 Ga. 686, distinguished.. Cited for defendant: 3 Ga. App. 333; 145 Ga. 688.

Hewlett & Dennis, for plaintiff. Brandon & Hynds, Colquitt & Conyers, J. H. Longino, for defendant.

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

Broyles, P. J.

“In the absence of any testimony at the trial under review that the engines of the defendant company were equipped with' proper spark-arresters, the various circumstances in proof were sufficient to require a submission to the jury of the issue whether the fire which destroyed the plaintiff’s property was caused by the negligence of the defendant company.” Jarrell v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 21 Ga. App. 415 (3) (94 S. E. 648). Under this ruling and the facts of the present case, after the allowance of the amendment to the petition, the court erred in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Bloodworth and Stephens, JJ., concur. Cited in the brief for plaintiff:

Ga. Rep. 90/11; 101/751; 113/338; 114/315; 135/400, 406; 138/440; 139/367-70; 139/408; 141/590; Ga. App. R. 11/483, 531, 790; 20/354; 31/415, 814, 818; 95 S. E. (N. C.) 175; 95 S. E. (N. C.) 490; 75 S. E. (Va.) 183; 163 Ky. 469; 35 Okla. 754; 97 Ark. 54; 153 N. C. 79; 184 Mich. 375; 173 Mo. App. 579; 148 Ky. 345; 111 Maine, 591; 143 Mo. App. 557;164 App. Div. (N. Y.) 431; 135 S. W. 70. 114 Ga. 713, 145 Ga. 686, distinguished.. Cited for defendant: 3 Ga. App. 333; 145 Ga. 688.

Hewlett & Dennis, for plaintiff. Brandon & Hynds, Colquitt & Conyers, J. H. Longino, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 S.E. 218, 23 Ga. App. 685, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carden-v-atlanta-birmingham-atlantic-railway-co-gactapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack