Gate City Fire Insurance v. Thornton

63 S.E. 638, 5 Ga. App. 585, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 68
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 9, 1909
Docket1522
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 63 S.E. 638 (Gate City Fire Insurance v. Thornton) 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
Gate City Fire Insurance v. Thornton, 63 S.E. 638, 5 Ga. App. 585, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 68 (Ga. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. The objection that an action is prematurely brought can be raised only by a timely formal plea in abatement, or, if the defect appears on the face of the pleading, by a special .demurrer filed at the first term. Realty Company v. Ellis, 4 Ga. App. 402 (61 S. E. 832), and cit.; Jester v. Bainbridge Bank, 4 Ga. App. 469 (61 S. E. 926).

Action on insurance policy, from city court of Waycross — Judge Myers. September 15, 1908. Argued January 26, Decided February 9, 1909. W. I. Heyward, for plaintiff in error. A. B. Spence, contra.

2. A person in possession of personal property is presumed to be the owner, until the contrary appears. Where a fire-insurance company insures certain property as belonging to the insured, the burden is on the-insurance company, in an action on the policy, to prove that the insured did not own the property.

3. Even though one of the parties .to the case be sworn as a witness, he will not be required to answer as to the contents of a writing accessible-by proper diligence, over the objection that the writing is the highest and best evidence. While the answer might be an admission against, interest, it is not such an admission as the court may require of the party sworn as a witness.

4. Refusal to direct a verdict is not subject-matter for a valid exception, in this State. - Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Sellers v. Air Therm Co.
498 S.E.2d 167 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1998)
Carmack v. Oglethorpe Company
161 S.E.2d 357 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Beard v. Stephens
159 S.E.2d 441 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1968)
Norwood Realty Co. v. P. & H. Homes, Inc.
107 S.E.2d 292 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Powell v. Riddick
80 S.E.2d 70 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1954)
Hanover, Fire Insurance v. Pruitt
2 S.E.2d 123 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1939)
North American Accident Insurance v. Scarborough
176 S.E. 671 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Giles v. Citizens Insurance
122 S.E. 890 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Andrews Co. v. Dorsett
115 S.E. 772 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1922)
Bond v. Bond
95 S.E. 1005 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Culpepper v. Culpepper
89 S.E. 161 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Cooper v. Ricketson
80 S.E. 217 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1913)
American Insurance v. Peebles & Co.
64 S.E. 304 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 S.E. 638, 5 Ga. App. 585, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gate-city-fire-insurance-v-thornton-gactapp-1909.