Tuggle v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tuggle v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co.

113 S.E. 36, 28 Ga. App. 733, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 812

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1922

Docket13554

StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.E. 36 (Tuggle v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tuggle v. Seaboard Air-Line Railway Co., 113 S.E. 36, 28 Ga. App. 733, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 812 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

Tuggle sought to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of his mule by the'railway company. At the conclusion of his evidence the court granted a nonsuit, and upon this judgment error is assigned.

The court properly granted a nonsuit. The evidence for the plaintiff negatived the alleged negligence in the killing of the mule. The case falls squarely, in principle, within-the ruling in the case of Gay v. Wadley, 86 Ga. 103 (12 S. E. 298), where Chief Justice Blecklej', speaking for the court, said; “ The plaintiff’s

mare having run along the railway track ahead of the train of her own accord until, reaching a trestle or open culvert, she fell into it and was injured, and the evidence showing that the train was almost stopped to give her time to escape, and that the whistle was continuously blown to frighten her from the track, and that the disaster was caused by her own obstinacy in following the track when she might have left it, the owner of- the mare had no cause of action against the owner of the railway, and the presiding judge did not err in granting a nonsuit.” In this connection see also Southern Railway Co. v. Frix, 137 Ga. 607 (73 S. E. 1057); Macon &c. R. Co. v. Wood, 3 Ga. App. 197 (59 S. E. 595); Southern Railway Co. v. Granger, 8 Ga. App. 239 (68 S. E. 942). Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

Tuggle sought to recover damages for the alleged negligent killing of his mule by the'railway company. At the conclusion of his evidence the court granted a nonsuit, and upon this judgment error is assigned.

The court properly granted a nonsuit. The evidence for the plaintiff negatived the alleged negligence in the killing of the mule. The case falls squarely, in principle, within-the ruling in the case of Gay v. Wadley, 86 Ga. 103 (12 S. E. 298), where Chief Justice Blecklej', speaking for the court, said; “ The plaintiff’s

mare having run along the railway track ahead of the train of her own accord until, reaching a trestle or open culvert, she fell into it and was injured, and the evidence showing that the train was almost stopped to give her time to escape, and that the whistle was continuously blown to frighten her from the track, and that the disaster was caused by her own obstinacy in following the track when she might have left it, the owner of- the mare had no cause of action against the owner of the railway, and the presiding judge did not err in granting a nonsuit.” In this connection see also Southern Railway Co. v. Frix, 137 Ga. 607 (73 S. E. 1057); Macon &c. R. Co. v. Wood, 3 Ga. App. 197 (59 S. E. 595); Southern Railway Co. v. Granger, 8 Ga. App. 239 (68 S. E. 942). Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 36, 28 Ga. App. 733, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuggle-v-seaboard-air-line-railway-co-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack