Southern Railway Co. v. Horine

49 S.E. 285, 121 Ga. 386, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 165
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedDecember 9, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 49 S.E. 285 (Southern Railway Co. v. Horine) 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
Southern Railway Co. v. Horine, 49 S.E. 285, 121 Ga. 386, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 165 (Ga. 1904).

Opinion

Fish, P. J.

1. A petition alleging that fire, which the defendant railway com- . pany carelessly permitted to escape from its locomotive, ignited litter which the company had permitted to accumulate on its right of way, and spreading therefrom burned plaintiff’s property, was amendable by alleging that the company “carelessly” permitted the litter to accumulate. Such amendment did not set up a new cause of action (City of Columbus v. Anglin, 120 Ga. 785), nor add a second count to the petition.

2. The words “ carelessly ” and “ negligently ” are synonymous.

3. The general rule is, that an amendment to a petition relates back to the time of the filing of the original petition, which is the only date to be considered, • relatively to the pleadings, on the question as to whether an action is barred by the statute of limitations.

4. “Possession of land under a claim of ownership being prima facie evidence of title in the occupant, the latter, upon proof of such possession, and without showing complete title, may maintain against a wrong-doer an action for a trespass upon the property, committed while'such possession existed.” McDonough v. Carter, 98 Ga. 703.

6. In the present case there was evidence from which the jury could have found that the plaintiff below was in the actual possession of the land upon which the property burned was situated, claiming it as his own ; and the contention of the plaintiff as to the liability of the defendant for the damages caused by the fire was not without evidence to support it.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Eshleman v. Key
774 S.E.2d 96 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2015)
United States v. Darisse
17 C.M.A. 29 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1967)
Timeplan Loan & Investment Corp. v. Colbert
134 S.E.2d 476 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1963)
Florence v. Lovell
43 S.E.2d 728 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1947)
Turner v. State
16 S.E.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
State Ex Rel. Campbell v. Chapman
1 So. 2d 278 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1941)
Folds v. City Council of Augusta
151 S.E. 685 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1930)
Stanford v. Ætna Insurance
123 S.E. 621 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Haynes v. Louisiana Ry. & Nav. Co.
74 So. 538 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1917)
Potter v. Richardson & Robbins Co.
99 A. 540 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1915)
Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Hutchinson
62 S.E. 97 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1908)
Southern Railway Co. v. Thompson
58 S.E. 1044 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Burnham
50 S.E. 984 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 S.E. 285, 121 Ga. 386, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-horine-ga-1904.