Gray v. Payne

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Gray v. Payne

109 S.E. 179, 27 Ga. App. 553, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 257

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 1, 1921

Docket12623

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 S.E. 179 (Gray v. Payne) 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

Gray v. Payne, 109 S.E. 179, 27 Ga. App. 553, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 257 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. The plaintiff’s petition contained two counts, the first under the Federal employer’s liability act, the second under the State law. The injury occurred while the plaintiff, a railroad employee, was engaged with other employees in demolishing an old trestle which was a part of a.n abandoned spur-track. This spur-track was not a part of [554]*554any other track, served no purpose, and performed no function in connection with the operation of the railroad, and was not intended for future úse in its operation. Held-. Not a case within the Federal employer’s liability act. Payne v. Demott, 26 Ga. App. 314 (106 S. E. 9); Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Winters, 242 U. S. 353 (37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. 358, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 54).

Decided November 1, 1921.

Action for damages; from city court of Albany — Judge Clayton Jones. May 21, 1921.

E. E. Cox, Lippilt & Burt, for plaintiff. Pope & Bennet, H. A. Peacock, for defendant.

2. As to all the other points in the record, the case is controlled by the decision of this court when the case was previously here on the same allegations and substantially the same evidence, and under authority of that decision the judgment of nonsuit is affirmed. Gray v. Hines, 25 Ga. App. 794 (104 S. E. 925).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hill, J.

1. The plaintiff’s petition contained two counts, the first under the Federal employer’s liability act, the second under the State law. The injury occurred while the plaintiff, a railroad employee, was engaged with other employees in demolishing an old trestle which was a part of a.n abandoned spur-track. This spur-track was not a part of [554]*554any other track, served no purpose, and performed no function in connection with the operation of the railroad, and was not intended for future úse in its operation. Held-. Not a case within the Federal employer’s liability act. Payne v. Demott, 26 Ga. App. 314 (106 S. E. 9); Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Winters, 242 U. S. 353 (37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. 358, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 54).

Decided November 1, 1921.

Action for damages; from city court of Albany — Judge Clayton Jones. May 21, 1921.

E. E. Cox, Lippilt & Burt, for plaintiff. Pope & Bennet, H. A. Peacock, for defendant.

2. As to all the other points in the record, the case is controlled by the decision of this court when the case was previously here on the same allegations and substantially the same evidence, and under authority of that decision the judgment of nonsuit is affirmed. Gray v. Hines, 25 Ga. App. 794 (104 S. E. 925).

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 179, 27 Ga. App. 553, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-payne-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack