Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Oliver
This text of 64 S.E. 1007 (Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. Oliver) 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.
Opinion
1. In a suit in a justice’s court for the killing of live stock through the negligence of the employees of a railroad company in the operation of its trains, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should' set out the particular acts of negligence. The strictness of pleading required in superior and city courts does not pertain to justices’ courts. Ga. So. & Fla. Ry. Co. v. Barfield, 1 Ga. App. 203 (58 S. E. 236); Southern Railway Co. v. Oliver, 1 Ga. App. 734 (58 S. E. 244); Southern Express Co. v. Briggs, 1 Ga. App. 294 (57 S. E. 1066); Hendrix v. Elliott, 2 Ga. App. 301 (58 S. E. 495); Patterson v. Same, 2 Ga. App. 755 (59 S. E. 18); Jackson v. Brothers & Sisters of Promise, 2 Ga. App. 761 (59 S. E. 11); Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Smith, 3 Ga. App. 644 (60 S. E. 353); Central Ry. Co. v. Crapps, 4 Ga. App. 550 (61 S. E. 1126).
2. The testimony in support of the plaintiff’s recovery, while not wholly satisfactory, was nevertheless legally sufficient to authorize the judge of the superior court in his discretion to refuse to set aside the verdict of the jury in the justice’s court on the pure issue of fact involved.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
64 S.E. 1007, 6 Ga. App. 308, 1909 Ga. App. LEXIS 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-southern-florida-railway-co-v-oliver-gactapp-1909.