Grimes v. City of Macon

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Grimes v. City of Macon

161 S.E. 633, 44 Ga. App. 374, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 732

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 15, 1931

Docket21867

StatusPublished

This text of 161 S.E. 633 (Grimes v. City of Macon) 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

Grimes v. City of Macon, 161 S.E. 633, 44 Ga. App. 374, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 732 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Alberta Grimes sued the City of Macon for damages on account of personal injuries from a fall through a wooden structure erected to afford passage for persons from the street to,her premises across a natural ditch or drain. She excepts to a judgment awarding a nonsuit.

There was no evidence to show that the structure was erected or maintained by the municipality. It did not appear that the structure served any use save a purely private one — that of the plaintiff and members of her household. There was no sidewalk along the front of her lot, and, therefore, the structure constituted no part of any sidewalk. It did not appear that the ditch or drain in front of her premises constituted any part of the public street. In these circumstances, there could be no obligation upon the municipality to keep the structure in a state of repair; and, therefore, it was hot error to sustain the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit.

Exception was also taken to a ruling excluding the testimony of Ben Beese, who offered to testify that, in the preceding year, the plaintiff’s husband (since deceased) spoke to an occupant of an automobile “that had City of Macon on it;” that this man “looked at the bridge, and said he thought it was all right to use — that the street forces of the city were doing some work in South Macon, and, as soon as they-completed the work there, he would have the bridge repaired.” The occupant of the car was not identified as an officer of the city, nor as any person authorized to speak in its behalf. [375]*375Testimony of such a nature could not, and ought not, to be of benefit to any party in such a case, for the reason that it is wholly without probative value.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

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

Luke, J.

Alberta Grimes sued the City of Macon for damages on account of personal injuries from a fall through a wooden structure erected to afford passage for persons from the street to,her premises across a natural ditch or drain. She excepts to a judgment awarding a nonsuit.

There was no evidence to show that the structure was erected or maintained by the municipality. It did not appear that the structure served any use save a purely private one — that of the plaintiff and members of her household. There was no sidewalk along the front of her lot, and, therefore, the structure constituted no part of any sidewalk. It did not appear that the ditch or drain in front of her premises constituted any part of the public street. In these circumstances, there could be no obligation upon the municipality to keep the structure in a state of repair; and, therefore, it was hot error to sustain the defendant’s motion for a nonsuit.

Exception was also taken to a ruling excluding the testimony of Ben Beese, who offered to testify that, in the preceding year, the plaintiff’s husband (since deceased) spoke to an occupant of an automobile “that had City of Macon on it;” that this man “looked at the bridge, and said he thought it was all right to use — that the street forces of the city were doing some work in South Macon, and, as soon as they-completed the work there, he would have the bridge repaired.” The occupant of the car was not identified as an officer of the city, nor as any person authorized to speak in its behalf. [375]*375Testimony of such a nature could not, and ought not, to be of benefit to any party in such a case, for the reason that it is wholly without probative value.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, G. J., concurs. Bloodworth, J., absent on account of illness.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 S.E. 633, 44 Ga. App. 374, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimes-v-city-of-macon-gactapp-1931.