Southern Railway Co. v. Phillips

Supreme Court of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Phillips

45 S.E. 967, 119 Ga. 146, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 67

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 9, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 45 S.E. 967 (Southern Railway Co. v. Phillips) 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. Phillips, 45 S.E. 967, 119 Ga. 146, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 67 (Ga. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Tuknek, J.

1. This court having heretofore finally adjudicated, not only that the plaintiff’s petition set forth a cause of action (114 Ga. 284), but also that the evidence relied on by him in support thereof warranted a recovery of damages (112 Ga. 197), and there having been at the last trial of the case, upon substantially the same evidence, a verdict in his favor, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling such of the grounds of the defendant’s motion for a new trial as complained that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and to certain specified charges of the court.

2. There was evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiff which warranted the court in charging the jury upon the subject of punitive damages. And as this evidence was admitted without objection, the court did not err in giving in charge the provisions of the Civil Code, § 3906, notwithstanding the plaintiff did not in his petition specifically pray for a recovery of such damages. Atlanta Con. St. Ry. Co. v. Owings, 97 Ga. 664 (4); Central R. Co. v. Attaway, 90 Ga. 659, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Tuknek, J.

1. This court having heretofore finally adjudicated, not only that the plaintiff’s petition set forth a cause of action (114 Ga. 284), but also that the evidence relied on by him in support thereof warranted a recovery of damages (112 Ga. 197), and there having been at the last trial of the case, upon substantially the same evidence, a verdict in his favor, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling such of the grounds of the defendant’s motion for a new trial as complained that the verdict was contrary to the evidence and to certain specified charges of the court.

2. There was evidence introduced in behalf of the plaintiff which warranted the court in charging the jury upon the subject of punitive damages. And as this evidence was admitted without objection, the court did not err in giving in charge the provisions of the Civil Code, § 3906, notwithstanding the plaintiff did not in his petition specifically pray for a recovery of such damages. Atlanta Con. St. Ry. Co. v. Owings, 97 Ga. 664 (4); Central R. Co. v. Attaway, 90 Ga. 659, and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.E. 967, 119 Ga. 146, 1903 Ga. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-phillips-ga-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack