Chance v. Southern Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chance v. Southern Railway Co.

73 S.E. 1076, 10 Ga. App. 702, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 656

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 6, 1912

Docket3784

StatusPublished

This text of 73 S.E. 1076 (Chance v. Southern 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

Chance v. Southern Railway Co., 73 S.E. 1076, 10 Ga. App. 702, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 656 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinions

Pottle, J.

1. Where a motion for a new trial was dismissed, and subsequently an order was passed vacating the dismissal and reinstating the motion, and where thereafter the motion was overruled and this last judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals, and a new trial ordered, the respondent in the motion can not, on the second -trial of the ease, by a motion to “dismiss the case,” for the first time call in. question the validity of the order reinstating the motion.

2. The evidence in the present record being substantially different from that introduced on the former trial (Southern Ry. Co. v. Chance, 7 Ga. App. 650, 67 S. E. 836), and there being evidence on the present trial which was not introduced on the first trial, from which the jury could find that the noise made by the engine was both unusual and unnecessary, a nonsuit should not have been granted.

Judgmeni reversed.

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

Pottle, J.

1. Where a motion for a new trial was dismissed, and subsequently an order was passed vacating the dismissal and reinstating the motion, and where thereafter the motion was overruled and this last judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals, and a new trial ordered, the respondent in the motion can not, on the second -trial of the ease, by a motion to “dismiss the case,” for the first time call in. question the validity of the order reinstating the motion.

2. The evidence in the present record being substantially different from that introduced on the former trial (Southern Ry. Co. v. Chance, 7 Ga. App. 650, 67 S. E. 836), and there being evidence on the present trial which was not introduced on the first trial, from which the jury could find that the noise made by the engine was both unusual and unnecessary, a nonsuit should not have been granted.

Judgmeni reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 1076, 10 Ga. App. 702, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chance-v-southern-railway-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack