Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Harden

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Harden

89 S.E. 432, 18 Ga. App. 392, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 367

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 6, 1916

Docket7300

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 432 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Harden) 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

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Harden, 89 S.E. 432, 18 Ga. App. 392, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Bboyles, J.

1. The petition showed no misjoinder of parties defendant. 2. Under the ruling in Higgins v. Southern Ry. Co., 98 Ga. 751 (25 S. E. 837), Smith v. Savannah Ry. Co., 100 Ga. 96 (27 S. E. 725), Brunswick & Western R. Co. v. Bostwick, 100 Ga. 96 (27 S. E. 725), Savannah Ry. Co. v. Godkin, 104 Ga. 655 (30 S. E. 378, 69 Am. St. R. 187), and McIver v. Florida Central R. Co., 110 Ga. 223 (36 S. E. 775, 65 L. R. A. 437), the court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the petition.

3. The request of counsel for the plaintiff in error that the question involved in this ease be certified to the Supreme Court, for the purpose of having the ruling in the above cited cases reviewed and modified or overruled, is, upon consideration, declined. Judgment affirmed.

Lawton & Cunningham, E. W. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, contra.

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

Bboyles, J.

1. The petition showed no misjoinder of parties defendant. 2. Under the ruling in Higgins v. Southern Ry. Co., 98 Ga. 751 (25 S. E. 837), Smith v. Savannah Ry. Co., 100 Ga. 96 (27 S. E. 725), Brunswick & Western R. Co. v. Bostwick, 100 Ga. 96 (27 S. E. 725), Savannah Ry. Co. v. Godkin, 104 Ga. 655 (30 S. E. 378, 69 Am. St. R. 187), and McIver v. Florida Central R. Co., 110 Ga. 223 (36 S. E. 775, 65 L. R. A. 437), the court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the petition.

3. The request of counsel for the plaintiff in error that the question involved in this ease be certified to the Supreme Court, for the purpose of having the ruling in the above cited cases reviewed and modified or overruled, is, upon consideration, declined. Judgment affirmed.

Lawton & Cunningham, E. W. Johnson, for plaintiff in error. Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 432, 18 Ga. App. 392, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-harden-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack