Roy v. Ga. R. & Banking Co
| Decision Date | 09 September 1915 |
| Docket Number | (No. 6041.) |
| Citation | 86 S.E. 328,17 Ga.App. 34 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ROY . v. GEORGIA R. & BANKING CO. et al. |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Madison; K. S. Anderson, Judge.
Action by Mrs. A. G. Roy against the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company and others. There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed in part, and in part affirmed.
Percy Middlebrooks, of Madison, Saml. H. Sibley, of Union Point, for plaintiff in error.
F. C. Shackelford and Cobb, Erwin & Rucker, all of Athens, McDaniel & Black, of Atlanta, H. H. Shelton, of Bristol, Va., Jos. B. & Bryan Cumming, and J. M. Hull, Jr., all of Augusta, and E. W. Butler and F. C. Foster, both of Madison, for defendants in error.
BROYLES, J. Judgment reversed in part, and affirmed in part.
To continue reading
Request your trial
9 cases
-
Yandell v. National Fireproofing Corp., 522
...Butler v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 87 Ga.App. 492, 74 S.E.2d 395; Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Creel, supra; Roy v. Georgia R. & Banking Co., 17 Ga.App. 34, 86 S.E. 328; Ruiz v. Midland Valley R. Co., 158 Kan. 524, 148 P.2d 734, 152 A.L.R. 1307; Folsom v. Lowden, 157 Kan. 328, 139 P.2d......
-
Millers Mut. Ins. Ass'n of Illinois v. Southern Ry. Corp.
...showing that the car was defective and that the delivering carrier accepted it without an inspection. See also Roy v. Georgia R. & Banking Co., 17 Ga.App. 34, 86 S.E. 328 (1915). In Yandell v. National Fireproofing Corp., 239 N.C. 1, 79 S.E.2d 223 (1953), the North Carolina Supreme Court de......
-
Modern Coach Corp. v. Faver
...having jurisdiction of the case and any judgment therein void. See Southern Ry. Co. v. Brock, 115 Ga. 721, 42 S.E. 65; Roy v. Georgia R. & Banking Co., 17 Ga.App. 34. And a petition brought in a county other than the county wherein the cause of action originated, which does not show that th......
-
Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Creel
... ... both railroad companies that at some time the car would be ... unloaded, and it was the duty of both the owner of the car ... and the ultimate carrier to see that the car and its devices ... for unloading are reasonably safe for the purpose of ... unloading. See Roy v. Georgia R. & Banking Company, 17 ... Ga.App. 34, 35(2), 86 S.E. 328. It was necessary for ... employees of the consignee to use the hand brakes of the car ... in this case to move the car for the purpose of unloading, ... and consequently the hand brake mechanism was one of the ... devices necessary for unloading ... ...
Request a trial to view additional results