Durham v. State
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bullard v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
- Cofer v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
- Wood v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
- King v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)
- Stuckey v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
- Johnson v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1916)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant was convicted of violating the “labor-contract act” (Acts 1903, p. '90, Penal Code, §§ 715, 716). It not having been proved that he had no good and sufficient cause for his failure to perform the contract, the conviction was unauthorized. Johnson v. State, 125 Ga. 243 (3), 246 (54 S. E. 184); Mobley v. State, 4 Ga. App. 78 (60 S. E. 803);Hankinson v. State, 6 Ga. App. 793 (65 S. E. 837); Brown v. State, 8 Ga. App. 211 (2), 212 (68 S. E. 865); Thorn v. State, 13 Ga. App. 10 (2), 13 (78 S. E. 853); Jones v. State, 16 Ga. App. 216 (84 S. E. 88). This essential proof was not furnished by the hirer’s'testimony that he did not give the defendant any cause to quit. The testimony on this point amounted to no more than an opinion or conclusion, without proof of facts to support it. Moreover, proof that the hirer did not give the defendant cause to quit would not of itself show that there was no good and sufficient cause. See Smiley v. State, 14 Ga. App. 15 (80 S. E. 31); Mobley v. State, 13 Ga. App. 730 (79 S. E. 907).
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.