« PředchozíPokračovat »
Defective machinery; measure is difference in value between that
contracted for and that delivered. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins,
93(2). Delay in delivering machinery (cotton-seed oil-mill), measure is
loss sustained. Ibid.
damages stated. Ibid. Delay in delivery of freight; measure is difference in value at des
tination, when they should and did arrive. Atlanta & West
what was reasonable time. Ibid. Servant, discharge of, pending contract of service, damages how
ascertained. Roberts vs. Crowley, 429(3). Trespass for cutting and carrying away timber from land, rules for
ascertaining, stated. Parker vs. Waycross & Florida, 388(7).
MINES AND MINING.
Verdict on foreclosure of mortgage on lots “and water ditch,” too
small here rather than too large. White. vs. Furtzwangler, 66. Same: Warranty of title to the "water-ditch," was ex
cepted here. Ibid,
aid of. McKamy vs. Cooper, 679(3). Fraudulent misrepresentations as to age, amendment setting up,
in aid of suit on note, improperly allowed. Ibid. 679(1). Ordinary care, or due care," in a minor, is such care as its capacity
fits it for exercising. Western & Atlantic 08. Young, 397(2). Parties, must be made so, before trust ostate can be sold in which
they are interested. East Rome Co. vs. Cothran, 360(3). Same: Order of confirmation, with representation had,
not cure defect, if judge disqualified. Ibid. 350'4). Parties, must be made so, where trustee or guardian applies for
leave to sell homestead. Deyton vs. Bell, 370(2). Personal injury to child nine years old (loss of arm); amount of
damages is in discretion of jury. Western & Atlantic Rail
road vs. Young, 397(4). Ratification; minor buying engine and retaining it after majority,
liable. McKamy vs. Cooper, 679(2). Rights of, often neglected, and ordinaries and chancellors cautioned
carefully to guard. Deyton vs. Bell, 371(3).
Support and education, minor entitled to, under scheme of mother's
will, having received these from father, cannot claim as
these benefits out of mother's estate. Ibid. 106(2),
MISNOMER. See Arbitration and Award.
MISREPRESENTATION. See Administrators and Erecutors.
Partition of lands under will, by mistake of appraisers made un
equal, binding after fourteen years acquiescence. Lererett vs. Stevenson, 701.
ments, held error under facts of this case. Parrott vs. Nes-
Manheim vs. Claflin, 133.
p. 36, same could be had at law. Ibid.
p. 64. Ibid. Foreclosure may be at law under 23971, or in equity under 43979(a).
Ibid, Forthcoming bond given under 23976, amendable. Lytle rs. De Vaughn,
227. Usury; ordinary mortgage infected with, not void. Hodge 19.
than too large. White vs. Furtzwangler, 66.
the "water-ditch." Ibid.
MOTION TO SET ASIDE. See Judgments.
tained. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(2, 3). Same: Condition of other awnings irrelevant. Ibid. 76(6). and liability of railroad companies. Western & Atlantic vs.
Damages from sewers or grading, not recoverable, prior to constitu
tion of 1877, unless done unskilfully. Atkinson vs. City, 625. Discharge of marshal before end of year by town incorporated under
22774-797, gives no action. Miller vs. Tcwn of Seney, 489. Garnishment, not subject to, for work done on a municipal school
house. Born vs. Williams, 796(1). Nuisance ; constitution of 1877 did not make that a nuisance which
was not before. Atkinson vs. City, 625.
brought within four years. Ibid. Nuisance, continuing, can be none, where no original nuisance.
Same: Smith vs. City, 75 Ga. 110, distinguished. Ibid. Railroads; street crossings; power to pass ordinances as to, and duty Ordinance prescribing duty of railroad at crossing, not to obey is
Young, 397(3). Suit against “the mayor and council of the city of Gainesville," sus
tained under terms of its charter. Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(1). Toombsboro, charter of; refusal of injunction here to test validity of,
not error. Duncan vs. Mayor, 353. Verdict for $800, or $900, for grave injury by awning over sidewalk
falling on plaintiff, is not excessive. Mayor vs. Calduell, 76(2, 3).
MURDER, See Criminal Law.
NEGLIGENCE. See Charge of Court; Railroads.
Tarver vs. Torrance, 261(1).
as to approved, here. Central Railroad vs. Nash, 581(2). Same: Head-note in Georgia Railroad vs. Oaks, 52 Ga. 410,
criticized. Ibid. 585. Innocent parties, where one of two must suffer, loss falls on one
whose negligence put in power of third person to do the
injury. Boatmen's Bank vs. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 224. Master not liable to servant for negligence of co-employe. Keith rs.
Walker Company, 49.
arch defectively constructed by the masons. Ibid. Matter of law, negligence as, for railway company not to use precau
tions at public crossings prescribed by statute or valid city
negligence as matter of law. Ibid.
jury. Ibid. Passenger jumping to avoid being carried beyond street crossing,
where conductor promised to let her off, nonsuit proper.
Watson vs. Georgia Pacific Railway, 476. Question for jury, and charge which takes it from them, error.
Covington vs. Western & Atlantic Railroad, 275 2). Rope furnished by master to servant i well-digger) breaking and in
juring him, nonsuit proper, when. Reid vs. Central Railroad, 694.
Bills of lading. See that title under Railroads.
Haas vs. Kansas City Railroad, 792(3a .
signee without production of, liable. Boatmen's Bank vs. Western w Atlantic Railroad, 221(1).
Arrest of judgment, overruling motion in, no ground for. Gard
ner vs. State, 144(1). Concurrent verdicts, two for plaintiff, court will construe evidence
more favorably to verdict than upon a first verdict. Tur
ner vs. Rome Street Railroad Co. 339. Conduct of persons crying out in court-room during trial of crimi
nal case, considered in granting. Woolfolk vs. State, 552 4). Demurrer to indictment, overruling, no ground for a. Flemister vs.
State, 768(2). Error in favor of complaining party, no ground for. McCook vs.
Harp, 2293). Evidence, error in rejecting, must appear it would elucidate some Evidence ruled out, materiality of, must appear. Rigden vs. Jordan,
issue, and was admissible for that purpose. Patterson vs.
Ramspeck, 8083). Evidence, material, on main question in controversy, improperly
excluded, new trial results. Bray vs. Latham, 643. Evidence, rejection of some competent, not necessarily work new
trial. Van Winkle vs. Wilkins, 94/9).
668(3). Evidence sustains verdict, and no error of law commmitted, refusa)
affirmed. Newman vs. Keith, 356. Evidence, when several writings in, all harmonize and bear with
united and powerful force against verdict; will be granted,
Roberts vs. Crowley, 429(1). First grant not scrutinized closely to find error. Wheeler vs. Robin.
Harmless error in charge, no cause for, where verdict correct. Fry
vs. State, 646(5). Hearsay admitted, not work new trial, where verdict fully sustained
by other evidence. Wilson vs. Coleman, 297(3). Irrelevant testimony, if immaterial, or nearly so, no ground for.
Mayor vs. Caldwell, 76(6). Juror agrees to verdict "reluctantly,” no ground for. Parker vs.
State, 332(5). Newly discovered evidence, credibility of witnesses establishing,
must appear, before Supreme Court will consider. Domis
nick vs. State, 715. Newly discovered evidence cumulative in character, discretion in
refusing, not controlled. Smith vs. State, 479(1). Newly discovered evidence : diligence in producing person present
at purchase of burglarized goods, not sufficient here. Wynn
vs. State, 744(2). Newly discovered evidence: discretion in refusing, not controlied,
where fight took place in court-house during term, and diligence in sifting crowd for witnesses not appearing. Smith
ts. State, 479(1). Newly discovered evidence: extraordinary motion denied, where
tending to impeach State's witnesses, and to suggest their
guilt, when. Dominick vs. State, 715. Newly discovered evidence going merely to credit of witness, even
if sole witness, no ground for. Hunt vs. State, 140(5). Newly discovered evidence impeaching in character, no new trial
for. Parker vs. State, 332(4); Reid vs. Slate, 763. Newly discovered evidence: witnesses present when pistol drawn
who would deny it was a pistol, affidavit must show pres
ence not known. Kinnebrew vs. State, 765(2). Nonsuit, refusal to, one ground of, no reason for dismissing other
grounds. Baker vs. Middlebrooks, 492(2). Omission to charge on plain matters, not work new trial, where no
request. Morgan is. Swann, 207(2).