Bibb Mfg. Co v. Williams, (No. 17626.)

• Decision Date: 16 March 1927
• Docket Number: (No. 17626.)
• Citation: 36 Ga.App. 605,137 S.E. 636
• Parties: BIBB MFG. CO. v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

36 Ga.App. 605

137 S.E. 636

BIBB MFG. CO.

v.WILLIAMS.

(No. 17626.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

March 16, 1927.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Bibb County; Malcolm D. Jones, Judge.

Action by V. D. Williams against the Bibb Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiff, defendant's motion for new trial was overruled, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Ryals, Anderson & Anderson, of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

R. D. Feagin and A. W. Graves, both of Macon, for defendant in error.

JENKINS, P. J. [1-5] This was a suit for damages on account of injuries sustained by the plaintiff when struck by an automobile operated by the defendant's agent. On the call of the case for trial, counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant stated to the court, not in the hearing of the jury, that the defendant was insured against liability by the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company of Baltimore, Md. After this statement, and upon the request of counsel for the plaintiff, the court purged the jury by inquiring of all the jurors in the courtroom, which included the panel from which the jury was to be stricken, whether or not any of them were stockholders, or sons of stockholders, or employees of the insurance company. This inquiry was made over the objection of counsel for the defendant, who stated to the court that he was a general agent of the insurance company and that he knew there were no stockholders of that company in the county, and that none of the jurors were stockholders or sons of stockholders of that company. Counsel for the plaintiff then called the court's attention to the fact that a certain juror was employed by a real estate and insurance firm which represented the insurance carrier as agents in Bibb county, and counsel for the defendant replied that the particular juror was employed in the real estate department of the firm and had no connection with the insurance company, but offered to allow the juror to go off for cause, or to strike him as a strike for the defendant. No juror disqualified upon the inquiry as to relationship to the insurance company; and upon the jury being stricken and impaneled, the defendant moved to declare a mistrial on account of the alleged improper purging of the jury. This motion was overruled, and the case proceeded to trial. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $500. The defendant excepts to the refusal of a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

STEPHENS and BELL, JJ.,...