Macon, Dublin & Savannah Railroad v. Brannan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Macon, Dublin & Savannah Railroad v. Brannan

80 S.E. 207, 14 Ga. App. 60, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 408

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1913

Docket5060

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.E. 207 (Macon, Dublin & Savannah Railroad v. Brannan) 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

Macon, Dublin & Savannah Railroad v. Brannan, 80 S.E. 207, 14 Ga. App. 60, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, C. J.

1. The issue as to whether the plaintiff’s injury was due to the negligence of the defendant, or to his own, was fairly submitted to the jury, and the result in the case seems to have finally turned upon whether the permanence of the injuries alleged to have been sustained was due to the wounds alleged to have been inflicted at the time of the casualty, or whether the plaintiff’s condition was due to an unmentionable disease, with which he denied he had ever been afflicted. Upon these issues it can not be held that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the finding in favor of the plaintiff.

2. No material errors of law were committed, and the judgment refusing a new trial will not be overruled. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, C. J.

1. The issue as to whether the plaintiff’s injury was due to the negligence of the defendant, or to his own, was fairly submitted to the jury, and the result in the case seems to have finally turned upon whether the permanence of the injuries alleged to have been sustained was due to the wounds alleged to have been inflicted at the time of the casualty, or whether the plaintiff’s condition was due to an unmentionable disease, with which he denied he had ever been afflicted. Upon these issues it can not be held that the evidence was insufficient to authorize the finding in favor of the plaintiff.

2. No material errors of law were committed, and the judgment refusing a new trial will not be overruled. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 207, 14 Ga. App. 60, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/macon-dublin-savannah-railroad-v-brannan-gactapp-1913.