Thompson v. Shelverton

Supreme Court of Georgia

Thompson v. Shelverton

63 S.E. 220, 131 Ga. 714, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 190

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 19, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 63 S.E. 220 (Thompson v. Shelverton) 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

Thompson v. Shelverton, 63 S.E. 220, 131 Ga. 714, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 190 (Ga. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. In an action for damages on account of an assault and battery, the defendant may give in evidence any opprobrious words or abusive language used by the plaintiff to him, in order to justify his conduct or mitigate the damages; and it is for the jury to determine, in view of the character of the provocation and the nature and extent of the battery, whether such opprobrious word's or abusive language amount to a justification or only to a mitigation of damages recoverable.

2. The reasoning of Mr. Justice Fish, now Chief Justice, as expressed in the dissenting opinion in Berkner v. Dannenberg, 116 Ga. 954, 963 (43 S. E. 463, 60 L. R. A. 559), is approved and controls the present ease. The decision made in that case, upon the point dealt with in the foregoing headnote, was not by the entire bench, but by three Justices only; and while the judgment announced by the majority of the court was controlling and could not be reviewed in the same case, and was followed in Dannenberg v. Berkner, 118 Ga. 885 (45 S. E. 682), the principle did not thereby become the adjudication of the entire bench. In connection with the dissenting opinion, in the case of Dannenberg v. Berkner, supra, see Renal Code, §103; Cross v. Carter, 100 Ga. 632 (28 S. E. 390).

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices, concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. In an action for damages on account of an assault and battery, the defendant may give in evidence any opprobrious words or abusive language used by the plaintiff to him, in order to justify his conduct or mitigate the damages; and it is for the jury to determine, in view of the character of the provocation and the nature and extent of the battery, whether such opprobrious word's or abusive language amount to a justification or only to a mitigation of damages recoverable.

2. The reasoning of Mr. Justice Fish, now Chief Justice, as expressed in the dissenting opinion in Berkner v. Dannenberg, 116 Ga. 954, 963 (43 S. E. 463, 60 L. R. A. 559), is approved and controls the present ease. The decision made in that case, upon the point dealt with in the foregoing headnote, was not by the entire bench, but by three Justices only; and while the judgment announced by the majority of the court was controlling and could not be reviewed in the same case, and was followed in Dannenberg v. Berkner, 118 Ga. 885 (45 S. E. 682), the principle did not thereby become the adjudication of the entire bench. In connection with the dissenting opinion, in the case of Dannenberg v. Berkner, supra, see Renal Code, §103; Cross v. Carter, 100 Ga. 632 (28 S. E. 390).

3. The evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, and there was no error in overruling the motion for new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 S.E. 220, 131 Ga. 714, 1908 Ga. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-shelverton-ga-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack