South Georgia Railway Co. v. Ryals

51 S.E. 428, 123 Ga. 330, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 459
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 15, 1905
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 51 S.E. 428 (South Georgia Railway Co. v. Ryals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
South Georgia Railway Co. v. Ryals, 51 S.E. 428, 123 Ga. 330, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 459 (Ga. 1905).

Opinion

Lumpkin, J.

(After stating the facts.) A general allegation in a declaration, that damage was done by the running of the locomotive and cars of a railroad company in a careless and negligent manner by its employeés,' is subject to special' de&iurrer. In the absence of amendment, a declaration based on such an allegation should be dismissed. Seaboard Air-Line Ry. v. Pierce, 120 Ga. 230; Macon, D. & S. R. Co. v. Stewart, Id. 890; Russell v. Central Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 705. As to a suit in a jus[332]*332tice’s court, see Macon & Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Walton, 121 Ga. 275. Section 2321 of the Civil Code, under which, upon proof of injury from the operation of its. locomotives, ears, or other machinery, a presumption of negligence arises against the railroad company, states a rule of evidence, and does not dispense with proper pleadings. In a suit against a railroad for the killing of stock, a failure to allege ownership of the stock furnishes ground for special demurrer. Georgia Railway & Electric Co. v. Knight, 122 Ga. 290. If there is a sufficient allegation of negligence on the part of a railroad company in respect of time, place, and circumstance, it furnishes no ground for demurrer that the declaration does not give the name of the negligent agent or agents. Fierce v. Seaboard Air-Line Ry., 122 Ga. 664.

The practice and modes of procedure in the county court are similar to those in the superior court. Civil Code, §§4198, 4204. The court having erred in overruling the demurrer, all that occurred subsequently to that ruling was nugatory and need not be considered. Macon R. Co. v. Walton, 121 Ga. 276.

. Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Simmons, G. J., absent.

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

Related

Wojcik v. State
392 S.E.2d 525 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1990)
Washington County v. Sheppard
167 S.E. 339 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1933)
Lime-Cola Bottling Co. v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad
128 S.E. 226 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic Railway Co. v. Whitehead
119 S.E. 539 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)
Smith v. Adair & McCarty Bros.
110 S.E. 317 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Burroughs
92 S.E. 1010 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)
Baggett & Son v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad
85 S.E. 928 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
General Supply & Construction Co. v. Lawton
62 S.E. 293 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1908)
Harden v. Georgia Railroad
59 S.E. 1122 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Williams
59 S.E. 846 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 S.E. 428, 123 Ga. 330, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-georgia-railway-co-v-ryals-ga-1905.