Ga. R.R. & Banking Co v. Friddell

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
Writing for the CourtBleckley, C. J
Citation7 S.E. 214,79 Ga. 489
Decision Date03 March 1888
PartiesGeorgia Railroad & Banking Co . v. Friddell.

7 S.E. 214
(79 Ga. 489)

Georgia Railroad & Banking Co .
v.
Friddell.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

March 3, 1888.


1. Master and Servant — Negligence op Master — Terminal Facilities op Railroads.

Two or more chartered railroad companies whose lines terminate at the same point, that is, at the same town or city, are not bound as a matter of law to have and use separate terminal facilities, but may within the corporate limits use the same track in common with or without common ownership, and when they do so, a track thus laid, though the exclusive property of one of the companies, is, for the time being, the track of each company so using it, and the proprietary company is not responsible to its employes for personal injuries which they sustain solely by reason of the negligent use of the track by the employes of another company. The redress for such injuries is against the company whose employes are at fault.

2. Same—Cases Distinguished.

In Railroad Co. v. Mayes, 49 Ga. 355, the negligent company was using the franchise as well as the track of the proprietary company. In Railroad Co. v. Perry.

[7 S.E. 215]

58 Ga. 461, and Perry v. Railroad Co., 66 Ga. 746, the injury was to a passenger. In Coggin v. Railroad Co., 62 Ga. 685, the negligence was by an employe of the proprietary company, and the injury was to an employe of a telegraph company.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Fulton county; Marshall J. Clarke, Judge.

J. B. Cumming, Hillyer & Bro., A. H. Cox, and Henry Jackson, for plaintiff in error. Hulsey & Bateman, for defendant in error.

Bleckley, C. J. Friddell was an employe of the Georgia Railroad Company, as a switchman, his business being to change the switches in the city and give signals to moving engines and trains on the Georgia Railroad. "While so engaged, and, we may assume under the evidence, without any fault on his part, he sustained a personal injury on account of the negligence of the employes of the Richmond

We think it makes no difference whether there was a contract or not. If each of these companies had a chartered right to come to the city of Atlanta, as each of them had, they could use a common track at a terminal point belonging to them jointly, or tracks in common belonging to them severally; and in the use of either each company would be upon its own franchise. It would not be exercising the franchise of the other company. That is the distinction. And hence, the verdict in this case was wrong. There could be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 8, 1946
    ...of St. Louis, The Terminal Railroad of St. Louis, and The Union Depot Company of St. Louis, Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Friddell, 79 Ga. 489, 7 S.E. 214, 11 Am. St. Rep. 447. (7) Moreover, as a result of the opinions of the United States Supreme Court, supra, appellant must permit any......
  • Graham v. Thompson, No. 39898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 27, 1948
    ...This construction will not place liability upon Kansas City Terminal in the case at bar. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co v. Friddell, 79 Ga. 489, 7 S.E. 214, 11 Am. St. Rep. 447; Smith v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. Co., 46 App. (D.C.) 275. (6) Disregarding the Missouri statutes, ......
  • Miller v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 37976.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1942
    ...liable for the lessee's acts no longer prevails, and the rule itself becomes inapplicable. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Friddell, 79 Ga. 489, 11 Am. St. Rep. 447, 7 S.E. 214. Moreover, if we assume liability of the lessor railroad for the acts of the lessee railroad, the specific theor......
  • Ga. R. & Banking Co v. Maddox
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • August 9, 1902
    ...The law upholds such a contract. 1 Elliott, R. R. § 42; 2 Elliott, R. R. §§ 356, 357, 358, and cases cited. See Banking Co. v. Priddell, 79 Ga. 489, 7 S. E. 214, 11 Am. St. Rep. 444. 4. From what we have said above, it is seen that the terminal yard, the operation of which the defendants in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Francis v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 39573.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • April 8, 1946
    ...of St. Louis, The Terminal Railroad of St. Louis, and The Union Depot Company of St. Louis, Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Friddell, 79 Ga. 489, 7 S.E. 214, 11 Am. St. Rep. 447. (7) Moreover, as a result of the opinions of the United States Supreme Court, supra, appellant must permit any......
  • Graham v. Thompson, No. 39898.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • May 27, 1948
    ...This construction will not place liability upon Kansas City Terminal in the case at bar. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co v. Friddell, 79 Ga. 489, 7 S.E. 214, 11 Am. St. Rep. 447; Smith v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington R. Co., 46 App. (D.C.) 275. (6) Disregarding the Missouri statutes, ......
  • Miller v. Terminal Railroad Assn., No. 37976.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1942
    ...liable for the lessee's acts no longer prevails, and the rule itself becomes inapplicable. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Friddell, 79 Ga. 489, 11 Am. St. Rep. 447, 7 S.E. 214. Moreover, if we assume liability of the lessor railroad for the acts of the lessee railroad, the specific theor......
  • Ga. R. & Banking Co v. Maddox
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • August 9, 1902
    ...The law upholds such a contract. 1 Elliott, R. R. § 42; 2 Elliott, R. R. §§ 356, 357, 358, and cases cited. See Banking Co. v. Priddell, 79 Ga. 489, 7 S. E. 214, 11 Am. St. Rep. 444. 4. From what we have said above, it is seen that the terminal yard, the operation of which the defendants in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT