Daniels v. Savannah F. & W. Ry. Co.

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BLANDFORD, J.
• Citation: Daniels v. Savannah F. & W. Ry. Co., 12 S.E. 365, 86 Ga. 236 (Ga. 1890)
• Decision Date: 26 November 1890
• Parties: DANIELS v. SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO.

12 S.E. 365

86 Ga. 236

DANIELS v. SAVANNAH, F. & W. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 26, 1890

Error from city court of Savannah; HARDEN, Judge.

R. R Richards and W. R. Leaken, for plaintiff in error.

Chisholm and Erwin & Du Bigon, for defendant in error.

BLANDFORD J.

When the plaintiff had submitted her evidence to the jury, the court awarded a nonsuit, and plaintiff excepted. The plaintiff showed by her testimony that she was dependent upon her son, her husband, and upon her own labor, for a support that her son contributed in part to her support. We think the court misapprehended the decision of this court in the case of Clay v. Banking Co., decided on the 10th of February 1890, and reported in 10 S.E. 967, wherein it was held that under the act of October 27, 1887, amending section 2971 of the Code, relating to the recovery of damages in cases of homicide, and extending the right to recover to the mother or father for the homicide of a child upon whom she or he might be dependent, or who contributed to her, or his support, in cases where the child left neither wife, husband, nor child a mother cannot recover for the homicide of a child who contributed to her support without showing that she was dependent upon him. This court did not mean by said decision to decide that the mother could not recover unless she was wholly dependent upon such child for a support, but, on the contrary, we think the meaning of the statute is...