Rogers v. Murray

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rogers v. Murray

100 S.E. 228, 24 Ga. App. 169, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 473

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 18, 1919

Docket10086

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.E. 228 (Rogers v. Murray) 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

Rogers v. Murray, 100 S.E. 228, 24 Ga. App. 169, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 473 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. There was evidence sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the defendant was negligent in setting out the fire on a very windy day in close proximity to the plaintiff’s property, and in failing to adequately protect or guard the fire so as to prevent its spread to the plaintiff’s property, and that such negligence on the part of the defendant was the proximate cause of the destruction of the plaintiff’s property. The verdict, having the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed.

2. The special assignments of error are but amplifications of the general assignments.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Action for damages; from city court of Oglethorpe—Judge Greer. July 29, 1918.

J. J. Bull & Son, for plaintiff in error. John B. Guerry, contra.

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

Stephens, J.

1. There was evidence sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the defendant was negligent in setting out the fire on a very windy day in close proximity to the plaintiff’s property, and in failing to adequately protect or guard the fire so as to prevent its spread to the plaintiff’s property, and that such negligence on the part of the defendant was the proximate cause of the destruction of the plaintiff’s property. The verdict, having the approval of the trial judge, will not be disturbed.

2. The special assignments of error are but amplifications of the general assignments.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Action for damages; from city court of Oglethorpe—Judge Greer. July 29, 1918.

J. J. Bull & Son, for plaintiff in error. John B. Guerry, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.E. 228, 24 Ga. App. 169, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-murray-gactapp-1919.