Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Jones

8 Ga. App. 90

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 19, 1910

Docket2584

StatusPublished

This text of 8 Ga. App. 90 (Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Jones) 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 Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Jones, 8 Ga. App. 90 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

In a suit to recover damages from a railroad company for killing a cow, the court charged the jury, “If you believe the railroad company was not negligent — did all they could to prevent the killing, under the rules of law given to you, and are not liable therefor, the form of your verdict will be, ‘We, the jury, find for the defendant’.” ' The foregoing excerpt was excepted to because the use of the words, “and are not liable therefor,” allowed the jury to find against the defendant “although they found it was not negligent and did all it could to prevent the killing of the cow.” Held, that this criticism is wholly without merit, irrespective of other exceptions that might have been taken. No other error of law being complained of, and the verdict being supported by the evidence,' the judgment refusing a new trial is Affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

In a suit to recover damages from a railroad company for killing a cow, the court charged the jury, “If you believe the railroad company was not negligent — did all they could to prevent the killing, under the rules of law given to you, and are not liable therefor, the form of your verdict will be, ‘We, the jury, find for the defendant’.” ' The foregoing excerpt was excepted to because the use of the words, “and are not liable therefor,” allowed the jury to find against the defendant “although they found it was not negligent and did all it could to prevent the killing of the cow.” Held, that this criticism is wholly without merit, irrespective of other exceptions that might have been taken. No other error of law being complained of, and the verdict being supported by the evidence,' the judgment refusing a new trial is Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Ga. App. 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-southern-florida-railway-co-v-jones-gactapp-1910.