Chattanooga Pub. Co. v. Fulton, 20756
| Decision Date | 07 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 20756,20756 |
| Citation | 114 S.E.2d 138,215 Ga. 880 |
| Parties | CHATTANOOGA PUBLISHING COMPANY v. Vera Mae FULTON. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
S. W. Fariss, LaFayette, Chambliss, Chambliss & Hodge, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff in error.
Robert E. Coker, LaFayette, Frank M. Gleason, Rossville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Mrs. Vera Mae Fulton brought her action for damages, in the City Court of Walker County, Georgia, against three defendants, George W. Bowers, a resident of Walker County, Georgia, Bert Brown Motors, Inc., a corporation of the State of Tennessee, with a place of business in Walker County, Georgia, and Chattanooga Publishing Company, a corporation of the State of Tennessee, for injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while riding as a gratuitous passenger in an automobile belonging to the publishing company, which was being operated at the time of the collision by her husband. Bert Brown Motors, Inc., was discharged on a general demurrer; a verdict was rendered in favor of the defendant George W. Bowers, and in favor of the plaintiff against the Chattanooga Publishing Company. The latter company (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) filed a motion for new trial and also a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based upon its motion for a directed verdict, made at the conclusion of all of the evedence. The trial judge sustained both the motion for a new trial and the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, to which judgments the plaintiff excepted by bill of exceptions to the Court of Appeals. That court reversed the judgment granting the motion for a new trial, holding that the motion was not filed within the time provided by the statute creating the City Court of Walker County, and reversed the judgment sustaining the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upon the ground that, in the view taken by that court of the evidence, 'the jury was authorized to find that the driver of the Chattanooga Publishing Company's truck was authorized to be in Georgia at the time and place at which the collision occurred,' and 'The evidence authorized a verdict for the plaintiff, and was so found by the jury, the trial court, consequently, erred in overruling the plaintiff's timely motion to dismiss, and the granting of, the judgment notwithstanding the verdict.' The case is before this court on certiorari. The application for certiorari assigns error on these rulings by the Court of Appeals upon the ground that they are contrary to law and contrary to the evidence, it being insisted, among other things, that the evidence demanded a finding that the plaintiff's husband was not engaged in the business of the defendant owner of the truck, or within the scope of his employment, at the time of the collision, but was using the truck outside of the State and of the territory of his employment, and for a purely personal mission of his own, for a visit by him and his wife to her relatives in Georgia. Held:
1. While there are a number of assignments of error in the application for certiorari, since the rulings on the questions presented with respect to the motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict are controlling, they alone will be considered.
2. Where, as here, a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was filed within thirty days aftert the reception of the verdict, which was set to be heard on a given date, and on that date the hearing was continued until a later date, and a motion was made to dismiss such motion because no brief of evidence had been filed in connection therewith, and that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp.
...to support a holding about the scope of an employer's liability for the actions of his employee. See Chattanooga Publishing Co. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880, 882 (3), 114 S.E.2d 138 (1960) (holding that an employer who owned a truck was not liable for injuries sustained in an accident involving t......
-
Ditmyer v. American Liberty Ins. Co., 43155
...& Guaranty Co. v. Skinner, 188 Ga. 823, 5 S.E.2d 9; Georgia Power Co. v. Shipp, 195 Ga. 446, 24 S.E.2d 764; Chattanooga Publishing Co., Inc. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880, 114 S.E.2d 138. 3. The evidence here is uncontradicted that Henderson had been forbidden to use the truck on a personal missio......
-
Brown v. Sheffield
...(reversed on other grounds in 224 Ga. 263, 161 S.E.2d 281); Young v. Kickliter, 213 Ga. 42, 96 S.E.2d 605; Chattanooga Publishing Co. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880, 114 S.E.2d 138; NuGrape Bottling Co. v. Knott, 47 Ga.App. 539, 171 S.E. 151; Ficklen v. Heichelheim, 49 Ga.App. 777(6), 176 S.E. 540;......
-
Sargent v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...of law. See State Farm, etc., Ins. Co. v. Dilbeck, 120 Ga.App. 740, 742, 172 S.E.2d 139 (1969). See also Chattanooga Pub. Co., Inc. v. Fulton, 215 Ga. 880, 882(3), 114 S.E.2d 138 (1960); McKinney v. T.I.M.E.-D.C., Inc., 134 Ga.App. 57, 59(2), 213 S.E.2d 166 (1975); Stewart v. Roberts, 132 G......