Stewart v. Georgia Terminal Co.

70 S.E. 867, 136 Ga. 36, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 405
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided March 4, 1911·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

(Pish, 0.' J.

1. Under the ruling in East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co. v. Boardman, 96 Ga. 356 (23 S. E. 403), the obstruction, at least of some of the streets complained of, did' not furnish ground for the recovery of damages by the plaintiff.

2. If any of the grounds of special damages would have sustained a recovery, the evidence introduced by the plaintiff failed to show the amount of damages arising from such causes as different from other causes not furnishing a right of recovery. There was no error, therefore, in granting a nonsuit.

3. None of the assignments of error upon rulings of the court on the admissibility of evidence show any error requiring a reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

Rolden, J., absent. The other Justices concur.

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

Stewart v. Georgia Terminal Co., 70 S.E. 867, 136 Ga. 36, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 405 (Ga. 1911).

70 S.E. 867 (Stewart v. Georgia Terminal Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Highway Department of Georgia v. REED, MAYOR
84 S.E.2d 561 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1954)