City of Rome v. Rhodes

68 S.E. 330, 134 Ga. 650, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 303
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 22, 1910
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 68 S.E. 330 (City of Rome v. Rhodes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Rome v. Rhodes, 68 S.E. 330, 134 Ga. 650, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 303 (Ga. 1910).

Opinion

Holden, J.

1. The owner of a lot and a two-story hrick storehouse thereon in an incorporated city sustained damages thereto resulting from the raising by the city of the grade of the streets and sidewalks, causing a depreciation in the value of the storehouse and making it necessary, for it to be available and of the same value it was prior to the change in grade, that the lower and upper floors, roof, and walls be raised. Subsequently a fire so damaged the building as to render it of but little, if any, value, except the walls. The owner received from an inurance company on account of such fire an amount nearly sufficient to rebuild such house, with its floors, roofs, and walls raised to such an extent as was necessary for the purposes above stated. Held, that neither such fire, nor the receipt by the owner of insurance money on account thereof, will relieve the city from liability for the full amount of damages which it occasioned. 1 Sutherland on Damages, § 158. p. 406; 7 Dec. Digest, “Damages,” § 64; 13 Cyc. 70-71; Western & Atlantic R. Co. v. Meigs, 74 Ga. 857. And see Nashville Ry. Co. v. Miller, 120 Ga. 453 (47 S. E. 959, 67 L. R. A. 87).

2. The court committed no error in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence to the effect that the plaintiffs agreed witli the insurance company that $1,945 was sufficient to rebuild the storehouse anew, as the verdict was for only $700, and was for a less amount than the evidence showed the damage to be.

3. It was not complained that any error of law was committed upon the trial of the ease. The evidence supported the verdict, and the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All Ihe Justices aonewr.

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

Related

E.P. Properties, Inc. v. Henry Edward Wright
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2025
COOPER BY AND THROUGH COOPER v. Aplin
523 So. 2d 339 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1988)
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co v. Hilley
121 Ga. App. 196 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
CINCINNATI, NO &C. R. CO. v. Hilley
173 S.E.2d 242 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Thompson v. Milam
154 S.E.2d 721 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. Stiles
60 S.E.2d 815 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Hollomon v. Hopson
166 S.E. 45 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Wachtel v. Leonard
163 S.E. 512 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1932)
Williams v. Dale
8 P.2d 578 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1932)
Hotel Equipment Co. v. Liddell
124 S.E. 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Atlanta Cadillac Co. v. Manley
116 S.E. 35 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Barrett v. Western & Atlantic Railroad
85 S.E. 1016 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1915)
Mayor of Americus v. Phillips
79 S.E. 36 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
68 S.E. 330, 134 Ga. 650, 1910 Ga. LEXIS 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-rome-v-rhodes-ga-1910.