The Ga. R.R. v. Cole Et Ux
| Decision Date | 30 September 1884 |
| Citation | 73 Ga. 713 |
| Parties | The Georgia Railroad. vs. Cole et ux. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Jury and Jurors. Practice in Superior Court. Waiver. Before Judge Hammond. DeKalb Superior Court. March Term, 1884.
Reported in the decision.
J. B. Cumming; Hillyer & Bro.; Candler, Thomson & Candler, for plaintiff in error.
Hoke Smith; L. J. Winn, for defendant.
Cole and wife brought an action against the Georgia Railroad for injuries which, it is alleged, the wife received by the negligence of the railroad company. The jury found a verdict for the railroad; whereupon Cole and wife moved the court for a new trial, on several grounds, all of which were overruled, except one, which was, that one of the jurors was related to certain of the stockholders as brother, and another of the jurors was a son-in-law of another stockholder in the railroad company. The court held that these jurors were incompetent, and for this reason alone he awarded a new trial in said case. The railroad company excepted to this judgment granting a new trial, and error thereon is assigned to this court. It was shown, in opposition to the motion for new trial, that the railroad company had leased its road and other property to Wm. M. Wadley, and that he had given a certain bond of indemnity to the Georgia Railroad Company for the payment of and compliance with the lease, and had deposited, to make good the same, one million of dollars in United States bonds, etc., and that the lessee was bound to said Georgia Railroad to pay all damages, etc.; and the plaintiff in error insists that the jurors are competent, as the stockholders are in no wise interested in the event of this suit, the road in which they are stockholders being fully indemnified by the bond of the lessee, Wadley, and the deposit of bonds to make the same good.
This action is against the Georgia Railroad and Banking Company. This company would be primarily liable for any judgment that might be recovered against it, and to save itself, would have to look to its security, which might or might not respond; in the one case, the company would have to respond and make the recovery good; in the other case, the company might fail to be indemnified; the one is certain, the other uncertain. This court held, in 60 Ga., 550, that a son of a stockholder was an incompetent juror. See Doyal vs. The State, 70 Ga., 134; also Beall vs. Clark et al., 71 Ga, 818. And if this be so, a brother or son-in-law of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...the inpaneling of a jury is not in compliance with law, the jury as a body is not competent to act, and its action is invalid. Georgia Ry. v. Cole, 73 Ga. 713, 715; Tompkins v. State, 138 Ga. 465, 469, 75 S.E. 594; Glass v. State, 109 Ga.App. 353, 354, 136 S.E.2d 199; Ludden v. State, 109 G......
-
Coffee v. State, A18A0960
...who, rather than being the victim of a crime, is seeking or defending against a significant money judgment. See, e. g., Georgia R. R. v. Cole , 73 Ga. 713, 715 (1885). In that circumstance, a stockholder would have a definitive financial stake in the verdict and "disqualification on the bas......
-
Kirkland v. State
...arises upon the fact of their relationship to persons having an interest in the case." Id. at 681, 26 S.E. 501. See also Georgia R. v. Cole, 73 Ga. 713 (1884) (a jury which is composed of persons whose relationship to shareholders of a party corporation renders them incompetent cannot retur......
-
Tatum v. State, 16789.
...right to be tried by a jury composed of twelve men each of whom is unbiased and impartial. As was said in Ga. Railroad v. Cole, 73 Ga. 713, 715: "A jury composed of men who are not lawful men--whose relationship to the parties renders them incompetent as jurors, cannot render a lawful verdi......