Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Attaway

66 S.E. 548, 7 Ga. App. 231, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 608
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided December 24, 1909·No. 2070·Published·Cited by 23 cases

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. The petition as amended set forth a valid cause of action.

2. Reasonable certainty is all that can be required, even as against special demurrer.

(a) A defect in a machine may be described by showing that the machine was in such condition that it produced certain definitely described' results which a machine not defective would not and should not produce. It is not necessary to describe minutely or particularly the physical appearance of the parts alleged to be defective. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Davis, 5 Ga. App. 214, 216 (62 S. E. 1022), and eases cited; Bub-bard v. Macon Ry. <£- Light Oo., 5 Ga. App. 223, 226 (62 S. E. 1018).

3. A j'uror who has served at a previous trial and joined in rendering a verdict in favor of one of the parties is subject to challenge for cause upon a subsequent trial of the case; and the court properly caused such a juror to be removed from the list before the parties were required to strike.

A What purports to be a brief of the evidence in this ease does not comply either literally or substantially with the requirements of section 5488 of the Civil Code of 1895. This court, therefore, is under the duty of declining to consider any of the alleged errors depending upon the consideration of the evidence. See Albamj & Northern Ry.' Oo. v. Wheeler, 6 Ga. App. 270 (6.4 S. E. 1114).

Action for damages; from city court of Bichmond county— Judge Eve. July 21, 1909. Submitted November 19, Decided December 24, 1909. W. K. Miller, for plaintiff in error. H. G. Honey, contra.

5. An inspection of the brief of the evidence would be necessary to determine the validity of the alleged exceptions as to the excluded testimony, as well as to the charge of the court, based on the testimony. Exceptions to rulings upon testimony and exceptions to the charge of the court must, in order to be intelligently determined, be considered in connection with the testimony actually admitted upon the trial. Where there is no legal brief of the evidence such exceptions can not usually be considered. Judgment affirmed.

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

Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Attaway, 66 S.E. 548, 7 Ga. App. 231, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 608 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

66 S.E. 548 (Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Attaway) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wood v. Hub Motor Company
137 S.E.2d 674 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Elrod v. King
123 S.E.2d 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Taylor v. Taylor
120 S.E.2d 874 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1961)
Midland Properties Co. v. Farmer
110 S.E.2d 100 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Morgan v. Crowley
85 S.E.2d 40 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Georgia, Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Williamson
65 S.E.2d 444 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1951)
Vickers v. Georgia Power Co.
54 S.E.2d 152 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Alford v. Zeigler
16 S.E.2d 69 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Page v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co.
9 S.E.2d 857 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1940)
Georgia-Alabama Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. White
191 S.E. 265 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
North British & Mercantile Insurance v. Parnell
185 S.E. 122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Jones v. Knightstown Body Co.
184 S.E. 427 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Southern Railway Co. v. Lunsford
179 S.E. 571 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1935)
Gullett Gin Co. v. Seagraves
176 S.E. 922 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Nichols v. Lindsey
165 S.E. 868 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
King Hardware Co. v. Ennis
147 S.E. 119 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Armour & Co. v. Miller
147 S.E. 184 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Beavers
95 S.E. 735 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Tinsley v. Gullett Gin Co.
94 S.E. 892 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Lanham v. Presley
68 S.E. 448 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1910)