Tatum v. Croswell, 9996.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 9996.,9996. |
| Citation | 174 S.E. 140,178 Ga. 679 |
| Parties | TATUM . v. CROSWELL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Certified Question from Court of Appeals.
Suit between A. F. Tatum and J. E. Croswell. To review the judgment, the first-named party brings error to the Court of Appeals, which certifies a question.
Question answered.
Burress & Dillard, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Sumter M. Kelley, Estes Doremus, and Spalding, MacDougald & Sibley, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
[I] 1. The Court of Appeals certified the following question: "Where, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of being struck by an automobile of the defendant, it appears that the defendant carries liability insurance, and the plaintiff by timely motion requests the trial judge to qualify the jury by purging the panel of any and all persons who are employees of, stockholders in, or related to stockholders in the defendant's insurance carrier (which carrier is not a party to the action), is a refusal by the judge so to qualify the jury reversible error, where the plaintiff does not affirmatively show that some of the jurors are employees of, stockholders In, or related to stockholders in the insurance carrier?" This question is answered in the af firmative. Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. ----, 174 S. E. 131.
2. This court will not examine the evidence in the record for the purpose of determining whether an answer to the question is unnecessary to a decision of the case, on the theory that the verdict was demanded. Morgan County Bank v. Poullain, 157 Ga. 423, 121 S. E. 813, 33 A. L. R. 592.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Crump
...between instances of this character and a bona fide effort to preserve the right of trial by an impartial jury." See Tatum v. Croswell, 178 Ga. 679, 174 S.E. 140 (1934); Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47, 174 S.E. 923 (1934); Rogers v. McKinley, 52 Ga.App. 161(30), 164, 182 S.E. 805 (1935); OC......
-
Cone v. Davis
...was insured by said company. This ruling comes within the rule in Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544, 174 S.E. 131; Tatum v. Croswell, 178 Ga. 679, 174 S.E. 140; Coleman v. Newsome, 179 Ga. 47, 174 S.E. 923. 3. Since the matters contained in the motion for continuance are not likely to ......
-
Cone v. Davis
... ... Coach Co. v. Cobb, 178 Ga. 544, 174 S.E. 131; Tatum ... v. Croswell, 178 Ga. 679, 174 S.E. 140; Coleman v ... Newsome, 179 Ga. 47, 174 S.E. 923 ... ...
-
Tatum v. Croswell
...174 S.E. 140 178 Ga. 679 TATUM v. CROSWELL. No. 9996.Supreme Court of GeorgiaMarch 14, 1934 ... ... Syllabus by Editorial Staff ... In ... personal injury suit, refusal to qualify jury by purging ... panel of employees, stockholders, and relations of ... stockholders, of defendant's liability insurer, ... ...