Moone v. Smith

67 S.E. 836, 7 Ga. App. 675, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 456
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedApril 19, 1910
Docket2430
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 67 S.E. 836 (Moone v. Smith) 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
Moone v. Smith, 67 S.E. 836, 7 Ga. App. 675, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 456 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. The court erred in granting a nonsuit. Moone v. Smith, 6 Ga. App. 649 (65 S. E. 712), and eit.

2. The fact that the plaintiff was himself at the time of his injury engaged in an act violative of the penal laws of this State (in this case, gaming) does not preclude his recovery for damage resulting to him from the negligence of another, provided that his unlawful act did not proximately contribute to bringing about his injury. 29 Cyc. 125; Johnson v. Rome Ry. & Light Co., 4 Ca. App. 742, 745 (62 S. E. 491) ; Norris v. Litchfield, 35 N. H. 271 (69 Am. D. 546).

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.
416 P.2d 793 (California Supreme Court, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 S.E. 836, 7 Ga. App. 675, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moone-v-smith-gactapp-1910.