Harrell v. Forsyth County

Supreme Court of Georgia

Harrell v. Forsyth County

73 S.E. 735, 137 Ga. 550, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 81

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 14, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 735 (Harrell v. Forsyth County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrell v. Forsyth County, 73 S.E. 735, 137 Ga. 550, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 81 (Ga. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

1. The defendant having introduced no evidence, but the witnesses for the plaintiff having been cross-examined at length, and not being in exact accord in some respects, even if it were not entirely apt to charge that the plaintiff must show her right to recover by a preponderance of the evidence, and to give in charge section 5730 of the Civil Code of 1910, on that subject, this furnishes no ground for a reversal, where the court charged fully the law touching the right of the plaintiff to recover and the defense of the defendant.

2. Under the decisions in Georgia Southern & Florida R. Co. v. Cartledge, 116 Ga. 164 (42 S. E. 405, 59 L. R. A. 118), and Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Barnwell, 131 Ga. 791 (63 S. E. 501), on the trial 'of an action against a county, brought to recover, damages on account of a personal injury alleged to have resulted from a defective bridge forming part of a public road, one alleged defect being a want of proper guard-rails, there was no error in rejecting evidence that when a new bridge was built after the injury banisters were placed on both sides from end to end of the bridge.

3. The assignment of error on the ground that the court erred in failing to charge the jury with sufficient distinctness as to results of a failure of county authorities to repair a bridge forming part of a public highway, within a reasonable time, was without merit.

4. No error of law requiring a new trial appearing, two verdicts having been rendered in favor of the defendant on successive trials of the case, there being sufficient evidence to authorize the finding, and it having been approved by the presiding judge, this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bill, J., not presiding.

Action for damages. Before Judge Morris. Forsyth superior court. January 2, 1911.

H. L. Patterson, for plaintiff. J. P. Brooke, for defendant.

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

Lumpkin, J.

1. The defendant having introduced no evidence, but the witnesses for the plaintiff having been cross-examined at length, and not being in exact accord in some respects, even if it were not entirely apt to charge that the plaintiff must show her right to recover by a preponderance of the evidence, and to give in charge section 5730 of the Civil Code of 1910, on that subject, this furnishes no ground for a reversal, where the court charged fully the law touching the right of the plaintiff to recover and the defense of the defendant.

2. Under the decisions in Georgia Southern & Florida R. Co. v. Cartledge, 116 Ga. 164 (42 S. E. 405, 59 L. R. A. 118), and Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Barnwell, 131 Ga. 791 (63 S. E. 501), on the trial 'of an action against a county, brought to recover, damages on account of a personal injury alleged to have resulted from a defective bridge forming part of a public road, one alleged defect being a want of proper guard-rails, there was no error in rejecting evidence that when a new bridge was built after the injury banisters were placed on both sides from end to end of the bridge.

3. The assignment of error on the ground that the court erred in failing to charge the jury with sufficient distinctness as to results of a failure of county authorities to repair a bridge forming part of a public highway, within a reasonable time, was without merit.

4. No error of law requiring a new trial appearing, two verdicts having been rendered in favor of the defendant on successive trials of the case, there being sufficient evidence to authorize the finding, and it having been approved by the presiding judge, this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Bill, J., not presiding.

Action for damages. Before Judge Morris. Forsyth superior court. January 2, 1911.

H. L. Patterson, for plaintiff. J. P. Brooke, for defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 735, 137 Ga. 550, 1912 Ga. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrell-v-forsyth-county-ga-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack