Southern Ry. Co. v. Rowe
Decision Date | 09 May 1907 |
Docket Number | 93. |
Citation | 59 S.E. 462,2 Ga.App. 557 |
Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. ROWE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Though the plaintiff in a suit which had been properly removed from the state to the federal court having concurrent jurisdiction of the cause of action in which suit was founded voluntarily dismissed his case in the United States court, it was nevertheless his right to bring another suit on the same cause of action in the state court at any time within the statute of limitations applicable to such action. This is true notwithstanding the damages in the second suit were laid in an amount which would prevent another removal to the federal court.
A cause of action dismissed in the United States court may be renewed in the state court without payment of the costs accrued in the federal court. Civ. Code, 1895, § 5043, imposing a penalty upon those who nonsuit or dismiss their cases, is not applicable to cases in the United States court. The words "the plaintiff may recommence his suit," refer to a suit between the identical parties that were involved in a former controversy in a court of the state of Georgia.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 13, Costs, § 1048.]
Where with apparent full knowledge of the existence of a ditch in a public road, and without any emergency requiring it to be crossed, one endeavors to pass such an excavation, he will be treated as having voluntarily assumed all the usual risks incident to the attempt.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, Negligence, § 86.]
Where it is clear from the allegations of the petition that the plaintiff's injuries might have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care on his part, a proper demurrer to the petition should not be overruled.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 37, Negligence, § 84.]
Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which the agent might lawfully do. Where an agent fails to use reasonable care or diligence in the performance of a duty, he will be personally responsible to a third person who is injured. His liability on such cases is put upon the ground that he is a wrongdoer, and, as such, responsible.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 40, Principal and Agent, §§ 606, 607.
For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, p. 4535.]
The railway company and its section boss may be jointly sued for damages resulting from the negligent and improper discharge of his duties by such boss. The boss as a wrongdoer is personally responsible to the party injured by his misfeasance resulting from failure to use reasonable care and diligence in the performance of his duty, and the company is responsible for the misfeasance of its agent.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, § 1238.]
The section boss and a railway company can be jointly sued when the sole ground of the liability of the railroad company is the act of the section boss alone.
[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, § 1238.]
Error from City Court of Hall County; G. H. Prior, Judge.
Action by J. E. Rowe against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Jno. J. Strickland and Ed Quillian, for plaintiff in error.
R. R. Arnold and F. M. Johnson, for defendant in error.
The defendant in error brought an action against the Southern Railway Company in the city court of Hall county for the recovery of $10,000 damages, returnable to the February term, 1906, of that court. This action upon petition was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States upon the ground that the defendant was a nonresident, and that the sum in controversy exceeded $2,000. The order of removal was granted by the judge of the city court of Hall county February 2, 1906. The case was duly transmitted to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia, and on the 3d of March, 1906, the case was stricken from the docket of that court upon the ground that there had been no proper service upon the defendant. The dismissal was ordered by his honor, Judge Newman, "without prejudice to the plaintiff to bring the case over again." The action for $10,000 damages thus concluded was against the Southern Railway Company alone. On the 12th of March, 1906, the defendant in error brought an action in the city court of Hall county against the Southern Railway Company and one A. C. Collier, a section boss of the defendant company, alleging that the defendants had endamaged him in the sum of $10,000.
The allegations of the petition, so far as pertinent to the negligence and misfeasance of the defendants, are as follows:
The connection of the plaintiff, his actings and doings at the time of the alleged injury, is stated in paragraph 9 of his petition, which is as follows: "On the 19th day of September, 1905, and about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, plaintiff was driving his wagon along said public road, and, when the same got upon said crossing and road and reached the ditch, the effect of said wagon striking into said ditch, which was deep and abrupt, was to cause the pole of the wagon to break, and as it broke the wagon was partly wrecked, and plaintiff was thrown to the ground and caught in parts of the wagon, and the break caught his leg, and he was thrown to the ground, his leg broken, and he was greatly and permanently injured."
At the appearance term the defendants demurred to the petition and also filed a plea in abatement. The demurrer is as follows: This demurrer was overruled. The defendant's plea in bar was by consent, submitted to the presiding judge, who refused to sustain the same, holding that it was unnecessary that the costs due in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the former suit, which was dismissed, should be paid before the institution of the pending suit. Exception is taken to the order overruling the demurrer and to the refusal of the court to sustain the plea in abatement. We shall first consider the questions presented by the exception to the judgment on the plea in bar.
1. In this case the plaintiff, J. E. Rowe, brought his suit each time for $10,000, so that evidently it was not his purpose to lay his damages in such an amount as would prevent removal to the federal court. But the joinder of Collier, the section boss, a citizen of Georgia, under...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tippecanoe Loan And Trust Company v. Jester
... ... and ... Eng. Ency. Law and Pr. 1160 et seq., and in [180 ... Ind. 364] note to Ellis v. Southern R. Co ... (1905), 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 378 ... Where ... the entire premises are not let to a single tenant, or where ... a ... Quinn (1907), 127 ... Mo.App. 525, 105 S.W. 1088; Harriman v ... Stowe (1874), 57 Mo. 93; Southern R. Co. v ... Rowe (1907), 2 Ga.App. 557, 59 S.E. 462; ... Stiewel v. Borman (1896), 63 Ark. 30, 37 ... S.W. 404; Ellis v. McNaughton (1889), 76 ... Mich ... ...
-
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Knight
...of society. It is the same not doing which constitutes actionable negligence in any relation." In Southern Ry. Co. v. Rowe, 2 Ga.App. 557, 59 S.E. 462, 466, it was said: "In Ellis v. McNaughton, 15 Am.St.Rep. 308, 76 Mich. 237, 242, 42 N.W. 1113, and Lough v. Davis, 94 Am.St.Rep. 848, 30 Wa......
-
City Of Macon v. Jones, (No. 17718.)
...So. Bell Telephone Co., 120 Ga. 980, 48 S. E. 399; Browning v. Village of Cave Spring, 7 Ga. App. 724, 67 S. E. 1045; So. Ry. Co. v. Rowe, 2 Ga. App. 557 (3), 59 S. E. 462; McCart v. Jasper County, 18 Ga. App. 769, 90 S. E. 725; Leslie v. Macon, 35 Ga. App. 484, 133 S. E. 638; City of Colum......
-
Atl. Coast Line R. Co v. Knight, 23077.
...other members of society. It is the same not doing which constitutes actionable negligence in any relation." In Southern Ry. Co. v. Rowe, 2 Ga. App. 557, 59 S. E. 462, 466, it was said: "In Ellis v. Mc-Naughton, 15 Am. St. Rep. 308. 76 Mich. 237, 242, 42 N. W. 1113, and Lough v. Davis, 94 A......