Atlantic & B.R. Co. v. Sumner
| Decision Date | 24 June 1910 |
| Citation | 68 S.E. 593,134 Ga. 673 |
| Parties | ATLANTIC & B. R. CO. v. SUMNER. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Whether a nonsuit could or could not have been properly awarded when the plaintiff closed his case, there being sufficient evidence, when the evidence was all in, to support the verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the refusal to grant a nonsuit affords no cause for a reversal.
Where on the trial of a civil case, the evidence was stenographically reported, but a mistrial was had, and in preparing for a second trial one side procured the stenographer to write out notes of the evidence, if this was done at the expense of such party and was its private memorandum, the presiding judge should not have required such party to deliver to the adversary party or his counsel such memorandum, unless it was either used in evidence by the party holding it, or witnesses were examined in relation thereto, or in some manner it became a document present in the courtroom which it was proper for the adverse party to have in order to introduce in evidence. One party or counsel should not ordinarily be required to deliver such private memoranda used in preparation for a trial to his adversary merely for the convenience of the latter, though in response to a notice to produce. But, under the facts as they appear in the motion for a new trial, it is not apparent that the ruling made was of such a character as to require a reversal.
Upon the trial of an action against a railroad company for the recovery of damages alleged to have been caused by the destruction of the plaintiff's property by fire started by sparks emitted from the smokestack of a particular locomotive operated by the defendant, it was competent for the plaintiff to show that all locomotives with straight smokestacks of the same construction as that on the engine alleged to have caused the fire threw out sparks.
The refusal of the court, upon written request, to charge that the jury were not bound by the valuation of the property as testified to by witnesses, was not hurtful to the defendant when the jury found for the plaintiff much less than the estimated value of the property according to the testimony of any witness.
A ground of a motion for a new trial which is equivalent to an assignment of error upon the whole charge is too general to present any question for determination, unless the whole charge appears to be erroneous.
Where,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Willis
...case as laid at the time of the motion for nonsuit, and if not, whether later evidence supplied the deficiency. Atlantic & Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Sumner, 134 Ga. 673, 68 S.E. 593; Rice v. Ware & Harper, 3 Ga.App. 573, 60 S.E. 301; Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah v. McDuffie, 6 Ga.App. 671, 6......
-
May v. Sorrell
... ... determination by this court; the whole charge not appearing ... to be erroneous. Atlantic ... to be erroneous. Atlantic & Birmingham Railway Co. v ... Sumner ... ...
-
May v. Sorrell, (No. 2536.)
...to present any question for determination by this court; the whole charge not appearing to be erroneous. Atlantic & Birmingham Railway Co. v. Sumner, 134 Ga. 673, 68 S. E. 593. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except BECK, P. J., and ATKINSON, J., who dissent on the ground that t......
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...case as laid at the time of the motion for nonsuit, and if not, whether later evidence supplied the deficiency. Atlantic & Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Sumner, 134 Ga. 673, 68 S.E. 593; Rice v. Ware & Harper, 3 Ga.App. 573, 60 S.E. 301; Ocean Steamship Co. of Savannah v. McDuffie, 6 Ga.App. 671, 6......