Copeland v. Curtis, (No. 17429.)
| Decision Date | 20 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | (No. 17429.) |
| Citation | 36 Ga.App. 255,136 S.E. 324 |
| Parties | COPELAND. v. CURTIS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action by Mrs. S. A. Copeland against A. L. Curtis. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Carl B. Copeland and G. N. Bynum, both of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Dorsey, Howell & Heyman and Mark Bolding, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
Armour & Co. v. Gulley
...6 S.E.2d 165 61 Ga.App. 414 ARMOUR & CO. v. GULLEY. No. 27560.Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.September 26, 1939 ... negligence to make a prima facie case." In Copeland ... v. Curtis, 36 Ga.App. 255, 256, 136 S.E. 324, this court ... said ... ...
-
Armour & Co v. Gulley
...these facts in themselves would sufficiently speak of the defendant's negligence to make a prima facie case." In Copeland v. Curtis, 36 Ga.App. 255, 256, 136 S.E. 324, this court said that where "the unwholesome quality of the food * * * with injury from its consumption" was established the......
-
Stevenson v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc.
...Ga.App. 148, 151(1), 30 S.E.2d 365 (1944). See also Burns v. Ralston Purina Co., 210 Ga. 82, 77 S.E.2d 739 (1953); Copeland v. Curtis, 36 Ga.App. 255(1), 136 S.E. 324 (1926). This permissive evidentiary inference as to causation of an unexplained and unusual event is also described by the m......
-
Copeland v. Curtis
...136 S.E. 324 36 Ga.App. 255 COPELAND v. CURTIS. No. 17429.Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second DivisionDecember 20, 1926 ... Syllabus ... by the Court ... This ... ...