Patterson v. Sams
| Decision Date | 31 October 1907 |
| Docket Number | (No. 527.) |
| Citation | 59 S.E. 18,2 Ga.App. 755 |
| Parties | PATTERSON. v. SAMS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Niceties of pleading are not required in the justices' courts; but an allegation in a petition attached to the summons that the servant of the defendants fired a brush heap near the line of plaintiff's land, and went away and left the fire burning near the property of the plaintiff, which was destroyed by fire, is ample allegation of negligence.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, § 1268.]
The word "servant, " in section 3817, Civ. Code 1895, refers only to domestic servants.
One cannot complain of a ruling which he himself has invoked.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 3, Appeal and Error, § 3591.]
The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. (Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Fayette County; E. J. Reagan, Judge.
Action by Mrs. W. J. Sams against George T. Patterson and another. Judgment for plaintiff against the named defendant and he brings error. Affirmed.
J. W. Wise, for plaintiff in error.
W. B. Hollingsworth and J. W. Culpepper, for defendant in error.
RUSSELL, J. Mrs. Sams brought suit against Will and George T. Patterson in a justice's court for $100 damages, alleging that the defendants caused 93 cords of her wood to be burned and destroyed. It appears that the justice rendered a judgment with which the plaintiff was dissatisfied, and she appealed it to a jury in the justice's court. After the verdict of the jury in the justice's court, the case was carried by certiorari to the superior court, and the judgment of the justice's court was reversed, and the case was remanded for another trial in the justice's court. Before this trial the case was by consent of both par ties appealed to a trial by jury in the superior court. On the trial in the superior court, upon motion of defendant's counsel, a nonsuit was granted as to Will Patterson, and a verdict was rendered against G. T. Patterson for $65. Before proceeding to trial in the superior court, the defendants demurred generally and specially to plaintiff's petition attached to the summons in the justice's court. The defendants demurred specially, because the petition did not set out the kind of servant the defendants employed, nor what his duties were, and because the petition failed to set out with sufficient certainty in what manner the defendants were negligent, or in what way their servant was negligent. The court overruled the demurrers, and exceptions were filed pendente lite. Error is assigned on the judgment overruling the demurrer, and the order granting the nonsuit, and the refusal of the motion for new trial.
1. There was no error in overruling the demurrer. The petition alleged "that defendants, by their servant, one Carl Scott, fired a brush heap on their land and negligently went away and left said fire burning, " etc. Under the ruling in Lockett v. Pittman, 72 Ga. 817, the word "servant" can have no other meaning than a domestic servant, and no other duties than those which appertain to such servants; and even if, in an action brought in the superior court, it were necessary to allege special facts showing the servant to be a domestic servant, and to set forth the duties of such servant with particularity, this is not necessary or required in a justice's court. Nor was there any merit in defendant's second ground of special demurrer. The allegation that the defendants' servant, Carl Scott, allowed fire to spread from the brush heap, near the line of plaintiff's premises, which had been fired by him, and to spread to petitioner's land, where it burned her wood, because he went away and left the fire burning, well knowing that said fire was near the property of plaintiff and likely to spread to her property if left unwatched, is, we are clear, a sufficiently certain statement of the manner in which the defendants and their servant were negligent to withstand a special demurrer in any court, and far more ample than was required in a justice's court.
It must be born in mind that the case, being in the superior court by appeal from the justice's court must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mauldin v. Mauldin
...91 Ga. 301, 18 S. E. 159; Stansell v. Massey, 92 Ga. 436, 17 S. E. 821; Berger v. Saul, 109 Ga. 240, 34 S. E. 1036; Patterson v. Sams, 2 Ga. App. 756, 59 S. E. 18. 2. It does not appear that the demurrers, to which the court ruled the original petition was subject, were urged against the pe......
-
Mauldin v. Mauldin
...Jackson, 91 Ga. 301, 18 S.E. 159; Stansell v. Massey, 92 Ga. 436, 17 S.E. 821; Berger v. Saul, 109 Ga. 240, 34 S.E. 1036; Patterson v. Sams, 2 Ga.App. 756, 59 S.E. 18. 2. does not appear that the demurrers, to which the court ruled the original petition was subject, were urged against the p......
-
Toole Furniture Co. v. Ellis
...did not rule that it was necessary that it appear that the servant was a domestic servant, but used the following language (page 756 of 2 Ga.App., page 18 of 59 S.E. ): "Even if, in an action brought in the superior it were necessary to allege special facts showing the servant to be a domes......
- Patterson v. Sams