Moone v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moone v. Smith

67 S.E. 836, 7 Ga. App. 675, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 456

Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 19, 1910·No. 2430·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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.

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

Pincite

67 S.E. 836 (Moone v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related