Underwood v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 21365
| Decision Date | 21 September 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 21365,21365 |
| Citation | 122 S.E.2d 100,217 Ga. 226 |
| Parties | Jesse S. UNDERWOOD v. ATLANTA & WEST POINT RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Greene, Neely, Buckley & DeRieux, John David Jones, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Heyman, Abram, Young, Hicks & Maloof, Herman Heyman, Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Jesse S. Underwood sued the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company in the Superior Court of Fulton County and prayed only for a money judgment. So far as need be stated, his petition alleges that he was permanently injured when the defendant's train negligently collided with a taxicab he was then driving over one of its street crossings in the City of Atlanta and while he was transporting passengers for hire. By its answer, the defendant denied all acts of negligence alleged against it and by an amendment thereto averred that the collision and the consequent injury the plaintiff sustained resulted from and were caused directly by his negligent failure to comply with the provisions of Code Ann. § 68-1663 which requires the driver of any motor vehicle carrying passengers for hire before crossing the track or tracks of any railroad to stop such vehicle within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad and while so stopped to listen and look in both directions along such track for any approaching train and for signals indicating any approaching train and not to proceed until he can do so safely. After all of the evidence had been introduced and after both parties had rested, the plaintiff made a motion to strike the averments in paragraph 6(b) and (c) of the defendant's amendment to its answer on the ground that Code § 68-1663(a) as construed by the court and as applied to the instant case violates enumerated clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions for stated reasons. The motion was overruled and that judgment is excepted to in the bill of exceptions. Held:
Since the official Code of 1933 does not contain a section numbered 68-1663(a), the plaintiff's motion to strike the averments in paragraph 6(b) and (c) of the amendment to the defendant's answer raises no proper constitutional question for decision by this court. For unanimous decisions so holding, see Morgan v. Todd, 214 Ga. 497, 499, 106 S.E.2d 37; Tomlinson v. Sadler, 214 Ga. 671, 107 S.E.2d 215; and Bowen v. State, 215 Ga. 471, 111 S.E.2d 44; and since this court does not for any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Board of Zoning Appeals of City of Columbus
...rights. See Bowen v. State, 215 Ga. 471, 111 S.E.2d 44; Morgan v. Todd, 214 Ga. 497, 499, 106 S.E.2d 37; Underwood v. Atlanta & Westpoint R.R. Co., 217 Ga. 226, 227, 122 S.E.2d 100. Further, this chapter of the Code Annotated deals with motor vehicles. The Act of 1946, which authorizes an a......
-
Swint v. Smith, 22238
...been violated. Adams v. Ray, 215 Ga. 656, 113 S.E.2d 100; Prince v. Thompson, 215 Ga. 860, 113 S.E.2d 772; Underwood v. Atlanta & West Point Railroad Co., 217 Ga. 226, 122 S.E.2d 100; Williams v. State, 217 Ga. 312, 122 S.E.2d 3. The operation of Code Ann. § 3-512 can not be waived by a par......
-
CTC Finance Corp. v. Holden
...This court has held in Morgan v. Todd, 214 Ga. 497, 106 S.E.2d 37; Bowen v. State, 215 Ga. 471, 111 S.E.2d 44; Underwood v. Atlanta & W.P.R. Co., 217 Ga. 226, 122 S.E.2d 100; and Mallard v. State, 220 Ga. 31, 136 S.E.2d 755, that the annotated code is not the law since it can become so only......
-
Stephens v. Moran, 22932
...S.E.2d 37; Tomlinson v. Sadler, 214 Ga. 671, 107 S.E.2d 215; Bowen v. State, 215 Ga. 471, 111 S.E.2d 44; and Underwood v. Atlanta & W. P. R. R. Co., 217 Ga. 226, 122 S.E.2d 100. In those cases this court refused to rule on an abortive and futile attempt to attack the validity of legislative......