Southern Railway Co. v. Jarrett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Jarrett

93 S.E. 240, 20 Ga. App. 648, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1016

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 26, 1917

Docket8146

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 240 (Southern Railway Co. v. Jarrett) 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

Southern Railway Co. v. Jarrett, 93 S.E. 240, 20 Ga. App. 648, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1016 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court, contained in grounds 1, '2, 3, and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, are not accurate statements of law, but, when considered in connection with the context, were not misleading upon any controlling question, and will not require a reversal of the judgment of the trial equrt.

2. If liability for the death of a minor child is shown, the father, who is entitled to the services of his minor child, may recover for the loss of such services, upon proof that the child was possessed of ability and capacity to render valuable services; and it is not necessary to show that the child actually rendered such services. The undisputed evidence in the present record is to the effect that the child (a girl seven years old) did in fact render valuable services to the" father; and in no view of the question was there error in the charge complained of in ground 5 of the motion for a new-trial.

3. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, which was approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and LuTce, J., concur.

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

George, J.

1. The excerpts from the charge of the court, contained in grounds 1, '2, 3, and 4 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial, are not accurate statements of law, but, when considered in connection with the context, were not misleading upon any controlling question, and will not require a reversal of the judgment of the trial equrt.

2. If liability for the death of a minor child is shown, the father, who is entitled to the services of his minor child, may recover for the loss of such services, upon proof that the child was possessed of ability and capacity to render valuable services; and it is not necessary to show that the child actually rendered such services. The undisputed evidence in the present record is to the effect that the child (a girl seven years old) did in fact render valuable services to the" father; and in no view of the question was there error in the charge complained of in ground 5 of the motion for a new-trial.

3. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, which was approved by the trial judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and LuTce, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 240, 20 Ga. App. 648, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 1016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-jarrett-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack