Washington County v. Holliman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Washington County v. Holliman

73 S.E. 351, 10 Ga. App. 322, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 488

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1912

Docket3476

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 73 S.E. 351 (Washington County v. Holliman) 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

Washington County v. Holliman, 73 S.E. 351, 10 Ga. App. 322, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Powell, J.

When this case was here before (8 Ga. App. 718 70 S. E. 100), on exception to nonsuit, we held that whether the defendant was guilty of negligence and whether the plaintiff was guilty of- contributory negligence were jury questions, under the evidence as then presented. The evidence in the present record is substantially the same, though, perhaps, a little stronger in the plaintiffs favor. The retrial'of the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The only exception is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Even if it were likely that this court would change its views so soon on the questions presented alike by the former and the present records, it has not the right or legal power to do so, so far as affects this case. The plaintiff in error certainly could not have hoped for any benefit, other than delay, from bringing the case to this court. As we can not escape the conclusion that the case is brought for delay only, it is our duty to award damages.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

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

Powell, J.

When this case was here before (8 Ga. App. 718 70 S. E. 100), on exception to nonsuit, we held that whether the defendant was guilty of negligence and whether the plaintiff was guilty of- contributory negligence were jury questions, under the evidence as then presented. The evidence in the present record is substantially the same, though, perhaps, a little stronger in the plaintiffs favor. The retrial'of the case resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The only exception is that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. Even if it were likely that this court would change its views so soon on the questions presented alike by the former and the present records, it has not the right or legal power to do so, so far as affects this case. The plaintiff in error certainly could not have hoped for any benefit, other than delay, from bringing the case to this court. As we can not escape the conclusion that the case is brought for delay only, it is our duty to award damages.

Judgment affirmed, with damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 351, 10 Ga. App. 322, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-county-v-holliman-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack