Georgia Northern Railway Co. v. Hadden

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Northern Railway Co. v. Hadden

88 S.E. 995, 18 Ga. App. 10, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 72

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 17, 1916

Docket6993

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 995 (Georgia Northern Railway Co. v. Hadden) 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

Georgia Northern Railway Co. v. Hadden, 88 S.E. 995, 18 Ga. App. 10, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 72 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, J.

There were in proof certain circumstances tending to contradict the evidence in behalf of the defendant that the horse came suddenly upon the track and its killing was unavoidable, notwithstanding the exercise by the defendant of “all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence when the injury occurred.” Southern Railway Co. v. Early, 105 Ga. 512 (31 S. E. 187). Whether the presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant, which arose upon proof of the killing of the horse by the running of its train, was overcome was a question for solution by the jury, and, in the absence of any assignment of error except as to the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the verdict, and the equivalent assignment that the verdict was contrary to [11]*11law, because without evidence to support it, the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the certiorari.

Decided April 17, 1916. Rehearing denied May 31, 1916.

Petition for certiorari; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. September 13, 1915.

Walters & Bedfearn> for plaintiff in error.. James L. Dowling, J. B. Bussell, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Bussell, O. J., absent.

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

Wade, J.

There were in proof certain circumstances tending to contradict the evidence in behalf of the defendant that the horse came suddenly upon the track and its killing was unavoidable, notwithstanding the exercise by the defendant of “all ordinary and reasonable care and diligence when the injury occurred.” Southern Railway Co. v. Early, 105 Ga. 512 (31 S. E. 187). Whether the presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant, which arose upon proof of the killing of the horse by the running of its train, was overcome was a question for solution by the jury, and, in the absence of any assignment of error except as to the sufficiency of the evidence to authorize the verdict, and the equivalent assignment that the verdict was contrary to [11]*11law, because without evidence to support it, the judge of the superior court did not err in refusing to sanction the certiorari.

Decided April 17, 1916. Rehearing denied May 31, 1916.

Petition for certiorari; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. September 13, 1915.

Walters & Bedfearn> for plaintiff in error.. James L. Dowling, J. B. Bussell, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Bussell, O. J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 995, 18 Ga. App. 10, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 72, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-northern-railway-co-v-hadden-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack