Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Geopp

• Decision Date: 28 November 1907
• Citation: 153 Ala. 108,45 So. 65
• Parties: CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. GEOPP.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

45 So. 65

153 Ala. 108

CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. v. GEOPP.

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 28, 1907

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1907.

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

Action by Jesse Geopp against the Central of Georgia Railway Company for damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff while a passenger on defendant's train, as the result of a collision. From a judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $1,950, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The pleadings and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court. The defendant requested the following among other charges, which were refused: "Charge 3. The court charges the jury that, unless they believe from the evidence that there was negligence on the part of the servants of defendant in charge of both trains testified about, which negligence caused the injury complained of, they must find for the defendant."

Chas P. Jones and W. F. Thetford, Jr., for appellant.

A. A Wiley, for appellee.

ANDERSON J.

The bill of exceptions in this case was not signed in time to authorize this court to review the rulings of the lower court upon the trial, but was signed within 30 days after the judgment upon the motion for a new trial, and therefore presents for review the action of the trial court in that respect. Montgomery Traction Co. v. Bozeman (Ala.) 44 So. 559; Montgomery Traction Co. v. Haygood (Ala.) 44 So. 560.

The complaint in one place charges the injuries as resulting from the negligence of those in charge of one train, and in another place charges negligence to those in charge of both trains. Whether or not the complaint was subject to demurrer we need not decide, as none was interposed. It is sufficient to say it states a cause of action which will support the verdict and judgment. The plaintiff proved a collision and injuries, and this made out a prima facie case of negligence as to the handling and operating of both trains.

It is insisted by the appellant that the trial court erred in refusing charge 3, requested by the defendant, and therefore erred in refusing the motion for a new trial because of said error. We do not think the trial court erred in refusing this charge. The complaint would permit a recovery upon proof of the handling of one train, the one upon which the plaintiff was being transported. It is contended, however, that there is no proof that this train was negligently handled or operated; that it...