Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Royal

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Royal

112 S.E. 737, 28 Ga. App. 682, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 780

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1922

Docket12669

StatusPublished

This text of 112 S.E. 737 (Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Royal) 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

Ocilla Southern Railroad v. Royal, 112 S.E. 737, 28 Ga. App. 682, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 780 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial contain exceptions only to certain excerpts froni the charge of the court, which are substantially the same, if not identical, with the excerpts from the charge excepted to in the case of Ocilla Southern R. [683]*683Co. v. McInvale, 26 Ga. App. 106 (105 S. E. 451), which was a suit for personal injuries by another plaintiff against the same defendant, growing out of the same transaction. The exceptions to the charge in the case under review are therefore controlled by the rulings in that case.

Decided June 14, 1922.

Action for damages; from Ben Hill superior court — Judge Gower. May 17, 1921.

Wall & Grantham, Quincey & Rice, for plaintiff in error. Eldridge Cutts, A. J. & J. C. McDonald, contra.

2. This being a suit to recover for the homicide of the father of the plaintiffs, and the evidence authorizing the inference that the negligence of the defendant railway company was the proximate cause of his death, and not demanding the inference that his death was caused by his own negligence in driving an automobile across a railroad crossing in sight of an approaching train, this court can not hold that a verdict for the defendant was as a matter of law demanded.

3. Th& verdict rendered for the plaintiff was authorized by the law and the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Jenlwns, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial contain exceptions only to certain excerpts froni the charge of the court, which are substantially the same, if not identical, with the excerpts from the charge excepted to in the case of Ocilla Southern R. [683]*683Co. v. McInvale, 26 Ga. App. 106 (105 S. E. 451), which was a suit for personal injuries by another plaintiff against the same defendant, growing out of the same transaction. The exceptions to the charge in the case under review are therefore controlled by the rulings in that case.

Decided June 14, 1922.

Action for damages; from Ben Hill superior court — Judge Gower. May 17, 1921.

Wall & Grantham, Quincey & Rice, for plaintiff in error. Eldridge Cutts, A. J. & J. C. McDonald, contra.

2. This being a suit to recover for the homicide of the father of the plaintiffs, and the evidence authorizing the inference that the negligence of the defendant railway company was the proximate cause of his death, and not demanding the inference that his death was caused by his own negligence in driving an automobile across a railroad crossing in sight of an approaching train, this court can not hold that a verdict for the defendant was as a matter of law demanded.

3. Th& verdict rendered for the plaintiff was authorized by the law and the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

Jenlwns, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 737, 28 Ga. App. 682, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ocilla-southern-railroad-v-royal-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack