Tatum v. Croswell

Supreme Court of Georgia

Tatum v. Croswell

174 S.E. 140, 178 Ga. 679, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 136

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMarch 14, 1934

DocketNo. 9996

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 174 S.E. 140 (Tatum v. Croswell) 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

Tatum v. Croswell, 174 S.E. 140, 178 Ga. 679, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 136 (Ga. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. The Court of Appeals certified the following question: “Where, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of being struck by an automobile of the defendant, it appears that the defendant carries liability insurance, and the plaintiff by timely motion requests the trial judge to qualify the jury by purging the panel of any and all persons who are employees of, stockholders in, or related to stockholders in the defendant’s insurance carrier (which carrier is not a party to the action), is a refusal by the judge so to qualify -the jury reversible error, where the plaintiff does not affirmatively show that some of such jurors are employees of, stock[680]*680holders in, or related to stockholders in the insurance carrier?” This question is answered in the affirmative. Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (173 S. E. ).

No. 9996. March 14, 1934. Burress & Dillard, for plaintiff. Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, Sumter M. Kelley, and Estes Doremus, for defendant.

2. This court will not examine the evidence in the record for the purpose of determining whether an answer to the question is unnecessary to a decision of the case, on the theory that the verdict was demanded. Morgan County Bank v. Poullain, 157 Ga. 423 (121 S. E. 813, 33 A. L. R. 592).

All the Justices concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. The Court of Appeals certified the following question: “Where, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of being struck by an automobile of the defendant, it appears that the defendant carries liability insurance, and the plaintiff by timely motion requests the trial judge to qualify the jury by purging the panel of any and all persons who are employees of, stockholders in, or related to stockholders in the defendant’s insurance carrier (which carrier is not a party to the action), is a refusal by the judge so to qualify -the jury reversible error, where the plaintiff does not affirmatively show that some of such jurors are employees of, stock[680]*680holders in, or related to stockholders in the insurance carrier?” This question is answered in the affirmative. Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544 (173 S. E. ).

No. 9996. March 14, 1934. Burress & Dillard, for plaintiff. Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, Sumter M. Kelley, and Estes Doremus, for defendant.

2. This court will not examine the evidence in the record for the purpose of determining whether an answer to the question is unnecessary to a decision of the case, on the theory that the verdict was demanded. Morgan County Bank v. Poullain, 157 Ga. 423 (121 S. E. 813, 33 A. L. R. 592).

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 S.E. 140, 178 Ga. 679, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatum-v-croswell-ga-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack