Savannah River Lumber Co. v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Savannah River Lumber Co. v. Smith

113 S.E. 46, 28 Ga. App. 767, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 845

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1922

Docket12955

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 46 (Savannah River Lumber Co. 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

Savannah River Lumber Co. v. Smith, 113 S.E. 46, 28 Ga. App. 767, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 845 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. "In an action in this State by a servant against bis master for an injury occurring in another State by reason of defective machinery furnished by the master, it will be presumed, unless the contrary be shown, that the common law prevails in such other State. The declaration in such case, brought under the common law, must allege, not only that the servant was ignorant of the defect, but also that he could not have discovered it by ordinary diligence, and that the master knew or ought to have known of it.” (Italics ours.) Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Miller, 113 Ga. 15 (2) (38 S. E. 338).

2. An allegation in a petition that the plaintiff was free from fault can not serve as a substitute for a proper allegation of his want of knowledge of the defect or that he could not have discovered it by ordinary diligence. Allen v. Augusta Factory, 82 Ga. 76, 79 (8 S. E. 68).

3. Under the above rulings, the petition did not set out a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

■Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

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

Bloodworth, J.

1. "In an action in this State by a servant against bis master for an injury occurring in another State by reason of defective machinery furnished by the master, it will be presumed, unless the contrary be shown, that the common law prevails in such other State. The declaration in such case, brought under the common law, must allege, not only that the servant was ignorant of the defect, but also that he could not have discovered it by ordinary diligence, and that the master knew or ought to have known of it.” (Italics ours.) Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Miller, 113 Ga. 15 (2) (38 S. E. 338).

2. An allegation in a petition that the plaintiff was free from fault can not serve as a substitute for a proper allegation of his want of knowledge of the defect or that he could not have discovered it by ordinary diligence. Allen v. Augusta Factory, 82 Ga. 76, 79 (8 S. E. 68).

3. Under the above rulings, the petition did not set out a cause of action, and the court erred in overruling the general demurrer.

■Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 46, 28 Ga. App. 767, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savannah-river-lumber-co-v-smith-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack