Turner v. Rome Street Railroad

Supreme Court of Georgia

Turner v. Rome Street Railroad

6 S.E. 690, 81 Ga. 336

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedMay 14, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 6 S.E. 690 (Turner v. Rome Street Railroad) 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

Turner v. Rome Street Railroad, 6 S.E. 690, 81 Ga. 336 (Ga. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Simmons, Justice.

The official report will show the pleadings and evidence in this case. It will also show that this case was twice tried by a jury in a justice’s court, who returned the same verdict both times. This court, in the case of Windsor vs. Cruise, 79 Ga. 635, ruled that where [340]*340there had been two or more concurrent verdicts, a reviewing court would construe the evidence more favorably to the verdict than it would upon a first verdict. Taking this rule for our guidance, we think that the judge of the superior court erred in granting this second new trial. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses abundantly sustains the finding of the jury. They had a right to believe the plaintiff’s theory of the case in preference to the defendant’s. The credibility of the witnesses was for the jury entirely, and we do not think that the court ought to have assumed, especially after the second verdict, the responsibility cast on the jnry by the law, and set their verdict aside.

Judgment reversed.

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

Simmons, Justice.

The official report will show the pleadings and evidence in this case. It will also show that this case was twice tried by a jury in a justice’s court, who returned the same verdict both times. This court, in the case of Windsor vs. Cruise, 79 Ga. 635, ruled that where [340]*340there had been two or more concurrent verdicts, a reviewing court would construe the evidence more favorably to the verdict than it would upon a first verdict. Taking this rule for our guidance, we think that the judge of the superior court erred in granting this second new trial. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses abundantly sustains the finding of the jury. They had a right to believe the plaintiff’s theory of the case in preference to the defendant’s. The credibility of the witnesses was for the jury entirely, and we do not think that the court ought to have assumed, especially after the second verdict, the responsibility cast on the jnry by the law, and set their verdict aside.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.E. 690, 81 Ga. 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-rome-street-railroad-ga-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack