Milltown Lumber Co. v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Milltown Lumber Co. v. Moore

70 S.E. 1128, 9 Ga. App. 259, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 500

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 24, 1911

Docket2950

StatusPublished

This text of 70 S.E. 1128 (Milltown Lumber Co. v. Moore) 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

Milltown Lumber Co. v. Moore, 70 S.E. 1128, 9 Ga. App. 259, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 500 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. The petition, without amendment, was good as against general demurrer; and its formal defects, attacked by special demurrer, were cured by amendment.

2. In a suit to recover damages for injuries to a mare, under an allegation that the animal “was broken, cut, bruised, and injured, so that she was worth only $25,” evidence that her “eyes were knocked out” was admissible.

3. Where a corporation, operating cars and locomotives on a tramway, was sired to recover damages for injuries to personal property, a charge to the effect that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the injuries “complained of and as set out in his declaration” were caused by the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its locomotive and cars, before a recovery would be authorized', embodied a correct principle of law, and did not authorize the consideration of any acts of negligence other than those set out in the petition; but even if the charge did not expressly limit the jury to the acts of negligence alleged, there was no evidence of any other acts of negligence than those set out in the petition, and the omission of a more specific instruction was harmless.

4. No material error of law appears. The issues were fairly and fully submitted to the jury. The evidence was in conflict on the question of negligence. The damages given were reasonable. ' The verdict was approved by the trial judge, and no reason is shown why this court should reverse the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

1. The petition, without amendment, was good as against general demurrer; and its formal defects, attacked by special demurrer, were cured by amendment.

2. In a suit to recover damages for injuries to a mare, under an allegation that the animal “was broken, cut, bruised, and injured, so that she was worth only $25,” evidence that her “eyes were knocked out” was admissible.

3. Where a corporation, operating cars and locomotives on a tramway, was sired to recover damages for injuries to personal property, a charge to the effect that the burden was on the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the injuries “complained of and as set out in his declaration” were caused by the negligence of the defendant in the operation of its locomotive and cars, before a recovery would be authorized', embodied a correct principle of law, and did not authorize the consideration of any acts of negligence other than those set out in the petition; but even if the charge did not expressly limit the jury to the acts of negligence alleged, there was no evidence of any other acts of negligence than those set out in the petition, and the omission of a more specific instruction was harmless.

4. No material error of law appears. The issues were fairly and fully submitted to the jury. The evidence was in conflict on the question of negligence. The damages given were reasonable. ' The verdict was approved by the trial judge, and no reason is shown why this court should reverse the judgment. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.E. 1128, 9 Ga. App. 259, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 500, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milltown-lumber-co-v-moore-gactapp-1911.