Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Lindsey

79 S.E. 361, 13 Ga. App. 461, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 204
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 17, 1913
Docket5041
StatusPublished

This text of 79 S.E. 361 (Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Lindsey) 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
Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Lindsey, 79 S.E. 361, 13 Ga. App. 461, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 204 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinions

Pottle, J.

The plaintiff was a passenger on one of the defendant’s trains. According to his testimony, he entered one of the coaches, where several persons were smoking, and lit a cigarette. There were one or two female passengers on the train, and the conductor requested the plaintiff to cease smoking. The plaintiff agreed to comply with the request, provided the conductor would compel others in the ear to desist from smoking. The conductor failed to compel the others to desist, and used towards the plaintiff harsh and insulting language, and, upon the plaintiff’s refusal to stop smoking, stopped thp train and ejected him therefrom. The' jury were authorized to accept the plaintiff’s version of the transaction, [462]*462and, under it, the verdict in his favor for $100 was authorized. Under the plaintiff’s testimony, the conductor was not in good faith endeavoring to enforce a reasonable regulation ol the company; and if others were permitted to smoke on the ear, the plaintiff had a right to assume that the conductor was attempting to impose upon him an unwarranted restriction on account of personal grievance directed solely against him, which he had done nothing to provoke. The testimony in the company’s behalf makes a different case; but the jury declined to accept its explanation of the occurrence. Judgment affirmed.

Decided September 17, 1913. Rehearing denied September 23, 1913. Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Eeid. June 6, 1913. W. G. Loving, for plaintiff in error. Alonzo Field, contra.

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

Related

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Motes
62 L.R.A. 507 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 S.E. 361, 13 Ga. App. 461, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seaboard-air-line-railway-v-lindsey-gactapp-1913.