DeLay v. Southern Railway Co.
42 S.E. 218, 115 Ga. 934, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 649
Opinion
Though there was evidence showing that the plaintiff was injured by reason of a defect in the implement furnished him with which-to work by his-master, the defendant, yet as it did not appear that the latter either knew, or in tile exercise of ordinary care and diligence ought to have known, of such defect, and did appear from the plaintiff’s own testimony that he had equal means with the master of ascertaining the existence of the - defect, the judgment of nonsuit was right. Civil Code, §§ 2611, 2612.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
DeLay v. Southern Railway Co., 42 S.E. 218, 115 Ga. 934, 1902 Ga. LEXIS 649 (Ga. 1902).
42 S.E. 218 (DeLay v. Southern Railway Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Owensby v. Jones
136 S.E.2d 451 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Holman v. American Automobile Insurance Company
39 S.E.2d 850 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1946)
Day & Co. v. Graybill
101 S.E. 759 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Butler v. Atlanta Buggy Co.
73 S.E. 25 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Wysong v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.
54 S.E. 214 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1906)
Ludd v. Wilkins
45 S.E. 429 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)