Carlton v. Western & A. R. Co
| Decision Date | 05 October 1888 |
| Citation | 81 Ga. 531,7 S.E. 623 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Carlton v. Western & A. R. Co. |
1. Witness—Competency—Transactions with Decedent.
Plaintiff, in an action for personal injuries, may testify to the circumstances under which he signed an instrument claimed to be a release of the demand sued on, and that the instrument introduced by defendant, to which his signature is attached, and which he was asked if he had signed, was not in fact the instrument signed by him, though defendant's vice-president, who procured the release, be deceased.
3. Release and Discharge—By Employe op Claim for Injuries—Want op Consideration.
An agreement by one injured while in the employ of another to receive in satisfaction of his claim for both wages and damages the wages to which he is entitled by his contract of hiring, and concerning which there is no dispute, is, in so far as it purports to release the claim for damages, without consideration.
3. Practice in Civil Cases—Production op Papers—Notice.
"Where a party giving notice to the adverse party to produce a paper fails to comply with the provision of Code G-a. § 3513, that the party giving the notice shall make oath that the paper is in the possession, power, or control of the party notified, and is material to the issue, and counsel does not state such to be the fact, refusal to compel its production is not error.1
Error from city court of Atlanta; Van Epps, Judge.
Action for personal injuries brought by Sam Carlton against the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Code Ga. § 3513, provides that the party giving notice to the adverse party to produce a paper shall make oath that the paper is in the possession, power, or control of the party notified, and is material to the issue.
Alexander & Turribull, for plaintiff in error. Hopkins & Glenn, for defendant in error
Blandford, J Carlton sued the Western & Atlantic Railroad Company for damages on account of injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while employed by the defendant in coupling cars, by reason of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant's servants. The defendant pleaded (1) the general issue; and (2) that the plaintiff, at the time he was employed by the defendant, entered into a written contract, which provided as follows: The defendant says that, in accordance with said contract, it made a settlement with said Carlton, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bass Dry Goods Co. v. Roberts Coal Co.
...while apparently to the contrary in some of their phases, are nevertheless clearly and rationably distinguishable. Carlton v. W. & A. R. Co., 81 Ga. 531, 7 S.E. 623; Armour v. Ross, 110 Ga. 403, 35 S.E. Georgia Railroad Co. v. Gouedy, 111 Ga. 310, 36 S.E. 691; Robinson v. Leatherbee Co., 12......
-
Robinson v. Belcher, (No. 17953.)
...or satisfy the others. He cites, in this connection, National Duck Mills v. Catlin, 10 Ga. App. 240, 73 S. E. 418, and Carlton v. W. & A. R. Co., 81 Ga. 531, 7 S. E. 623. In the Carlton Case the Supreme Court held that a person was not bound by his relinquishment of damages based upon a rec......
-
In re Brown's Estate
...indorsed, and it is sought to show that its contents were not the same when produced on the trial as when it was delivered to Cole. In the Carlton case the decision is based upon the that the claimant was asked, when a witness on the stand, by defendant, if he signed the paper, and that was......
-
Cole v. Marsh (In re Brown's Estate)
...In support of his contention, counsel for appellant relies upon Cousins v. Jackson, 52 Ala. 262; Sweet v. Low, 28 Hun, 432; Carlton v. Railroad Co. (Ga.) 7 S. E. 623. In the case of Cousins v. Jackson, plaintiff's claim was based upon a judgment, and was made against the defendant as surety......