Cates v. Itner

30 S.E. 884, 104 Ga. 679, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 398
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 7, 1898·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Simmons, O. J.

The evidence in the record clearly shows that the plaintiff in this case was injured by reason of the negligence of a fellow-servant. This being true, he can not recover of the master. McDonald v. Eagle & Phenix Mfg. Co., 67 Ga. 761; s. c., fully reported, 68 Ga. 839; Stanley v. R. & D. Ext. Co., 72 Ga. 202; McGovern v. Columbus Mfg. Co., 80 Ga. 227.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concwrring.

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

Cates v. Itner, 30 S.E. 884, 104 Ga. 679, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 398 (Ga. 1898).

30 S.E. 884 (Cates v. Itner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Miller v. Fulton
111 Ga. App. 849 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Story v. Crouch Lumber Company
6 S.E.2d 86 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Southern Railway Co. v. Heaton
6 S.E.2d 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
Stevens v. Bibb Manufacturing Co.
86 S.E. 445 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Owens v. San Pedro, L. A. & S. L. R.
89 P. 825 (Utah Supreme Court, 1907)
Moore v. Dublin Cotton Mills
56 S.E. 839 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Moore v. King Manufacturing Co.
53 S.E. 107 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1906)
Southern Agricultural Works v. Franklin
36 S.E. 693 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)