Horton & Smith v. Harvey

Supreme Court of Georgia

Horton & Smith v. Harvey

46 S.E. 70, 119 Ga. 219, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 90

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 12, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 46 S.E. 70 (Horton & Smith v. Harvey) 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

Horton & Smith v. Harvey, 46 S.E. 70, 119 Ga. 219, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 90 (Ga. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Lamar, J.

The plaintiff was not a mere licensee, but, having been invited to bring his cotton to be ginned at defendants’ public ginnery, could recover damages for injuries occasioned by defendants’ negligence while he was on the premises, even though the act was not reckless, willful, or grossly negligent. Atlanta Cottonseed, Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145. While the petition was meager in its statement of facts, the charge that the cotton was, shoved from the ginnery platform on to the wagon with great force and violence, thereby throwing it against the plaintiff and breaking his leg, set put a cause of action as against a general demurrer. The fact that there was no crane and no rope' and tackle for lifting the cotton, and that the plaintiff knew thereof and by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the injury, were matters for defense. Archer v. Blalock, 97 Ga. 719.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Lamar, J.

The plaintiff was not a mere licensee, but, having been invited to bring his cotton to be ginned at defendants’ public ginnery, could recover damages for injuries occasioned by defendants’ negligence while he was on the premises, even though the act was not reckless, willful, or grossly negligent. Atlanta Cottonseed, Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145. While the petition was meager in its statement of facts, the charge that the cotton was, shoved from the ginnery platform on to the wagon with great force and violence, thereby throwing it against the plaintiff and breaking his leg, set put a cause of action as against a general demurrer. The fact that there was no crane and no rope' and tackle for lifting the cotton, and that the plaintiff knew thereof and by the exercise of ordinary care could have avoided the injury, were matters for defense. Archer v. Blalock, 97 Ga. 719.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.E. 70, 119 Ga. 219, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-smith-v-harvey-ga-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack