Southern Railway Co. v. Williams

Supreme Court of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Williams

86 S.E. 938, 144 Ga. 236, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 151

DecidedNovember 11, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 86 S.E. 938 (Southern Railway Co. v. Williams) 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. Williams, 86 S.E. 938, 144 Ga. 236, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 151 (Ga. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

This case was before the Supreme Court on a former occasion. Williams v. Southern Ry. Co., 140 Ga. 713 (79 S. E. 850). When the case was returned to the trial court the defendant amended its answer, and evidence was introduced thereunder. The amendment was an elaboration of the original answer, but did not raise any new issue or change the character of the case. The charge of the court on the subsequent trial sufficiently covered the issues made, and was in accordance with the principles announced in the decision of the case by this court. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict for the plaintiff, and the discretion of the judge in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justiees eoncur, except Beeh, J., absent.

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

Atkinson, J.

This case was before the Supreme Court on a former occasion. Williams v. Southern Ry. Co., 140 Ga. 713 (79 S. E. 850). When the case was returned to the trial court the defendant amended its answer, and evidence was introduced thereunder. The amendment was an elaboration of the original answer, but did not raise any new issue or change the character of the case. The charge of the court on the subsequent trial sufficiently covered the issues made, and was in accordance with the principles announced in the decision of the case by this court. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the verdict for the plaintiff, and the discretion of the judge in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justiees eoncur, except Beeh, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 S.E. 938, 144 Ga. 236, 1915 Ga. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-williams-ga-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack