Barrett v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 18 January 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21658.,21658. |
| Citation | 44 Ga.App. 611,162 S.E. 308 |
| Parties | BARRETT. v. JACKSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Error from Superior Court, Gordon County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.
Suit by Callie Barrett against E. L. Jackson and others. To review the judgment for defendants, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Statement of facts by Jenkins, P. J.:
This was a suit for damages on account of mental pain and suffering, and impairment of the health of the plaintiff, by reason of the alleged violation by the defendants of a contract by which the defendants undertook to remove the body of the plaintiff's dead husband from the grave in which it had been buried for more than twenty years to another grave. It was alleged, and the plaintiff testified, that the defendants contracted to remove the body and casket intact, without removing the body from the casket, and assured the plaintiff that this could be done. There was evidence going to show that, instead of doing so, the defendants dug into the old grave, removed only a portion of the casket, and placed the bones of the decedent in another receptacle, which was buried in the new grave to which the plaintiff desired the body removed. The testimony was in sharp conflict as to the contract between the parties. One of the defendants testified that he informed the plaintiff when the agreement was made that the body had been buried for many years and that probably it would be impossible to remove the casket intact, and the plaintiff informed him that she desired the bones removed anyway. The evidence was also in conflict as to the method used in removing the body. There was evidence on behalf of the plaintiff that only a portion of the length of the old grave had been dug out, and that neither the bottom nor top of the old casket had been taken out. The testimony on behalf of the defendants, from those who assisted in removing the body, was to the effect that the old grave was dug out its entire length, and it was found on making the entrance that the wood portions of the old casket had rotted, and that the thin sides of the metal lining of the old casket had rusted out and collapsed, leaving the top and bottom of the metal lining intact; that all of the bones of the decedent were removed and placed in a new receptacle, and that the top and bottom of the lining of the old Casket were also removed and placed in the new receptacle. Several months after the body had been removed to the new grave, the plaintiff's son dug into the old grave and found one small human bone, some portions of the old casket, and some articles of cloth which appeared either to be portions of the casket lining or of the apparel in which the body had been clothed at the time of burial.
The plaintiff's son testified that on the day when the contract for removing the body was entered into he informed the defendants of his desire to be present when the work was done, and it was agreed that the work should be done on the morning of the following day, but that, instead of waiting until the following day, the defendants did the work on the afternoon of the same day, and in the absenceof the plaintiff's son. His testimony as to this agreement was disputed by the defendant who made the contract, and it appeared without dispute that another relative of the plaintiff was present when the old grave was entered, and removed the tombstone to the new burial site, and that a grandson of the plaintiff was present at the new burial site when the body was brought to that place, and at least during a portion of the time when it was being interred at the new burial site; that this grandson informed his father, the plaintiff's son referred to, that the defendants were then engaged in the work of removing the body; and that the plaintiff's son did not go to the new burial site.
There was no testimony going to show that the defendants took any steps to conceal the manner in which they had done the work, or made any representation to the plaintiff afterwards as to the manner in which the work had been done, other than to inform her that the job had been completed. The defendants contended and testified that the work was done in conformity with the contract. It appears, without dispute, that the contract...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivell v. Private Health Care Sys., Inc.
...existence of the facts constituting a cause of action does not prevent the running of the statute of limitations.” Barrett v. Jackson, 44 Ga.App. 611, 611, 162 S.E. 308 (1932). Assuming, without deciding, that Defendants misappropriated the names of Drs. Rivell and Whitehouse, those torts w......
-
Everhart v. Rich's, Inc.
...v. Walsh, 117 Ga. 467 (43 SE 704); Freeman v. Craver, 56 Ga. 161; Irvin v. Bentley, 18 Ga.App. 662(3) (90 SE 359); Barrett v. Jackson, 44 Ga.App. 611 (162 SE 308); Silvertooth v. Shallenberger, 49 Ga.App. 133 (174 SE 365); Silvertooth v. Shallenberger, 49 Ga.App. 758 (176 SE 829); Bryson v.......
-
M.H.D. v. Westminster Schools, 97-8039
...damage then may be. Hoffman v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 241 Ga. 328, 245 S.E.2d 287, 289 (1978) (quoting Barrett v. Jackson, 44 Ga.App. 611, 162 S.E. 308, 309 (Ga.Ct.App.1932)). Thus, the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff's cause of action becomes legally cognizable. I......
-
Parker v. Vaughan, 45789
...insofar as they may be viewed as conflicting with the holding here. In Davis v. Boyett, 120 Ga. 649(2), 48 S.E. 185 and Barrett v. Jackson, 44 Ga.App. 611, 162 S.E. 308 the appellate courts held that mere ignorance of the facts constituting a cause of action does not prevent the running of ......