Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Richie

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Richie

103 S.E. 98, 25 Ga. App. 259, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 722

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 5, 1920

Docket1102, 1103

StatusPublished

This text of 103 S.E. 98 (Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Richie) 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

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Richie, 103 S.E. 98, 25 Ga. App. 259, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 722 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

This case has been tried three times, each trial resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. Two of the verdicts were set aside by the court below on motion for a new trial, but the last motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted and brought the case to this court for review. The grounds of the amended motion for a new trial amount to no more than an elaboration of the general grounds; and there being some evidence from which the jury could infer negligence on the part of the defendant railroad company, and whether the consequences of that negligence could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff being an issue of fact for their determination, and the trial judge having approved the verdict returned, this court is without power to interfere.

<Judgment affirmed on main bill of exceptions; cross-bill dismissed.

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

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

Smith, J.

This case has been tried three times, each trial resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff. Two of the verdicts were set aside by the court below on motion for a new trial, but the last motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant excepted and brought the case to this court for review. The grounds of the amended motion for a new trial amount to no more than an elaboration of the general grounds; and there being some evidence from which the jury could infer negligence on the part of the defendant railroad company, and whether the consequences of that negligence could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff being an issue of fact for their determination, and the trial judge having approved the verdict returned, this court is without power to interfere.

<Judgment affirmed on main bill of exceptions; cross-bill dismissed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 S.E. 98, 25 Ga. App. 259, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-nashville-railroad-v-richie-gactapp-1920.