Chicago & Northwestern Railway v. Elliott

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Chicago & Northwestern Railway v. Elliott

85 S.E. 615, 16 Ga. App. 388, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 641

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 3, 1915

Docket5823

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 615 (Chicago & Northwestern Railway v. Elliott) 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

Chicago & Northwestern Railway v. Elliott, 85 S.E. 615, 16 Ga. App. 388, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 641 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Eussell, C. J.

1. No question as to the sufficiency of the approval of grounds of a motion for new trial, or of the approval of the brief of evidence, or of the filing thereof, can be entertained by the Court of Appeals, where the judge has finally passed upon the merits of the motion for new trial, unless the question was first raised and insisted on before the trial judge. Acts 1911, page 149. Collins v. State, 12 Ga. App. 635 (77 S. E. 1079). See also Nobles v. State, 14 Ga. App. 480 (81 S. E. 370).

2. The case was within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court. The plaintiff was not bound to claim all of the damages which were the subject of legal recovery. Jennings v. Stripling, 127 Ga. 778 (56 S. E. 1026), and numerous cases there cited.

3. As applied to the facts of this case, the charge of the court as to the extraordinary diligence required of a carrier in the transportation of goods was sufficiently in accord with section 2712 of the Civil Code to afford no ground for reversal.

4. The charge of the court complained of in the second ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial was favorable to the defendant company. In the absence of a timely written request for further instructions, the charge was sufficiently full.

5. The verdict was supported by evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. o Judgment affirmed.

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

Eussell, C. J.

1. No question as to the sufficiency of the approval of grounds of a motion for new trial, or of the approval of the brief of evidence, or of the filing thereof, can be entertained by the Court of Appeals, where the judge has finally passed upon the merits of the motion for new trial, unless the question was first raised and insisted on before the trial judge. Acts 1911, page 149. Collins v. State, 12 Ga. App. 635 (77 S. E. 1079). See also Nobles v. State, 14 Ga. App. 480 (81 S. E. 370).

2. The case was within the jurisdiction of the justice’s court. The plaintiff was not bound to claim all of the damages which were the subject of legal recovery. Jennings v. Stripling, 127 Ga. 778 (56 S. E. 1026), and numerous cases there cited.

3. As applied to the facts of this case, the charge of the court as to the extraordinary diligence required of a carrier in the transportation of goods was sufficiently in accord with section 2712 of the Civil Code to afford no ground for reversal.

4. The charge of the court complained of in the second ground of the amendment to the motion for a new trial was favorable to the defendant company. In the absence of a timely written request for further instructions, the charge was sufficiently full.

5. The verdict was supported by evidence, and there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial. o Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 S.E. 615, 16 Ga. App. 388, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-northwestern-railway-v-elliott-gactapp-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack