Henry v. Etowah Dredging Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Henry v. Etowah Dredging Co.

81 S.E. 197, 141 Ga. 406, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 223

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 23, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 81 S.E. 197 (Henry v. Etowah Dredging Co.) 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

Henry v. Etowah Dredging Co., 81 S.E. 197, 141 Ga. 406, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 223 (Ga. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Fish, C. J.

1. The petition was sufficient to withstand a general demurrer.

2. Although the evidence introduced by the plaintiff from some of his witnesses may have conflicted with his testimony as to whether the machinery which caused the injury to him was safely constructed, and whether the injury was brought about by the plaintiff’s own carelessness in the manner of its operation, yet in the light of his own testimony it can not be said that there was no evidence authorizing the case to be passed on by the jury. The differences in the testimony of witnesses introduced by the plaintiff do not furnish ground for nonsuit, if there is evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. What the truth may be is for their determination.

Judgment reversed on the mam hill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-hill.

All the Justices concur.

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

Fish, C. J.

1. The petition was sufficient to withstand a general demurrer.

2. Although the evidence introduced by the plaintiff from some of his witnesses may have conflicted with his testimony as to whether the machinery which caused the injury to him was safely constructed, and whether the injury was brought about by the plaintiff’s own carelessness in the manner of its operation, yet in the light of his own testimony it can not be said that there was no evidence authorizing the case to be passed on by the jury. The differences in the testimony of witnesses introduced by the plaintiff do not furnish ground for nonsuit, if there is evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. What the truth may be is for their determination.

Judgment reversed on the mam hill of exceptions, and affirmed on the cross-hill.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 S.E. 197, 141 Ga. 406, 1914 Ga. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-etowah-dredging-co-ga-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack