Elbert County v. Harper

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Elbert County v. Harper

88 S.E. 714, 17 Ga. App. 817, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 955

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 21, 1916

Docket6704

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 714 (Elbert County v. Harper) 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

Elbert County v. Harper, 88 S.E. 714, 17 Ga. App. 817, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 955 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

The plaintiff alleged in his petition that, while driving at night over a county bridge, his mule, which was hitched to a buggy, became frightened at a hole in the bridge and some elevated pieces of the flooring of the bridge which had worked out of place, and backed the buggy, with himself in it, off the bridge, thus injuring him. No evidence was adduced to sustain the allegation that the mule’s fright was caused by the defective condition of the bridge as described in the petition (in fact it is not disclosed by the record what was the cause of the mule’s fright). As this was a material averment of the petition, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish it by proof, and, he having failed to do so, the verdict in his favor can not be sustained.

Judgment reversed.

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

Broyles, J.

The plaintiff alleged in his petition that, while driving at night over a county bridge, his mule, which was hitched to a buggy, became frightened at a hole in the bridge and some elevated pieces of the flooring of the bridge which had worked out of place, and backed the buggy, with himself in it, off the bridge, thus injuring him. No evidence was adduced to sustain the allegation that the mule’s fright was caused by the defective condition of the bridge as described in the petition (in fact it is not disclosed by the record what was the cause of the mule’s fright). As this was a material averment of the petition, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish it by proof, and, he having failed to do so, the verdict in his favor can not be sustained.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 714, 17 Ga. App. 817, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elbert-county-v-harper-gactapp-1916.