Prickett v. Title

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Prickett v. Title

90 S.E. 287, 18 Ga. App. 676, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1185

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedOctober 18, 1916

Docket7562

StatusPublished

This text of 90 S.E. 287 (Prickett v. Title) 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

Prickett v. Title, 90 S.E. 287, 18 Ga. App. 676, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1185 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Wade, C. J.

This was a suit to recover damages for the killing of a dog, and the petition alleged that the defendant “maliciously and wilfully shot and killed the said dog.” The demurrer complaining that the petition did not allege that the killing was done “intentionally or wantonly” was overruled, and the correctness of that ruling is not brought in question by cross-bill of exceptions and can not now be considered.

There was. testimony, though somewhat vague, which was not objected to and which was sufficient to show that the dog had some value, and which authorized at least a recovery of nominal damages, and testimony from which the jury might have drawn the inference that the killing of the dog was not only intentional but wanton and malicious, since the killing was deliberate and no [677]*677sufficient reason or explanation therefor appears. Without determining whether recovery can now he had for the killing of a dog where the killing is not -shown to. have been wanton and malicious, the trial judge erred in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

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

Wade, C. J.

This was a suit to recover damages for the killing of a dog, and the petition alleged that the defendant “maliciously and wilfully shot and killed the said dog.” The demurrer complaining that the petition did not allege that the killing was done “intentionally or wantonly” was overruled, and the correctness of that ruling is not brought in question by cross-bill of exceptions and can not now be considered.

There was. testimony, though somewhat vague, which was not objected to and which was sufficient to show that the dog had some value, and which authorized at least a recovery of nominal damages, and testimony from which the jury might have drawn the inference that the killing of the dog was not only intentional but wanton and malicious, since the killing was deliberate and no [677]*677sufficient reason or explanation therefor appears. Without determining whether recovery can now he had for the killing of a dog where the killing is not -shown to. have been wanton and malicious, the trial judge erred in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E. 287, 18 Ga. App. 676, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 1185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prickett-v-title-gactapp-1916.