Akins v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hill v. State (Ga. 1955)
- Steinmetz v. Chambley (Ga. Ct. App. 1954)
- Justice v. Davis (Ga. Ct. App. 1940)
- Elliott v. Georgia Power Co. (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)
- Clackum v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)
- Bridges v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Studdard (Ga. Ct. App. 1925)
- Veal v. Wood (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
- Tallulah Falls Railway Co. v. Stribling (Ga. Ct. App. 1917)
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. McElmurray Bros. (Ga. Ct. App. 1914)
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Briggs (Va. 1904)
- Mabry v. Henley (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)
- Southern Pine Co. v. Smith (Ga. 1901)
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
1. There was, on the trial of an action against a railroad company for damages alleged to have been caused by setting fire to the plaintiffs’ woods, no error in rejecting evidence warranting an inference that, shortly before or shortly after the day upon which a particular fire occurred, a locomotive of the company had thrown out sparks from which straw had become ignited, there being no evidence in any manner tending to show that this locomotive was run on the day in question. Gainesville R. Co. v. Edmondson, 101 Ga. 747; Brown v. Benson, Ibid. 753.
2. It is not competent for a witness to testify as to a fact of which he has no
3. A witness who himself enters in a book a memorandum of a particular occurrence may afterwards testify to the correctness of the entry and to the fact that the occurrence actually took place, although he can not, independently of the memorandum, remember this fact.
4. All the special points of any .consequence which arose in this case are disposed of by the preceding notes. While the evidence was sufficient to raise a suspicion that the fires complained of were set out by the defendant’s locomotives, it did. not require a finding to this effect. This being so, and no material error of law having been committed, the verdict in favor of the defendant will not be disturbed ; for there was sufficient evidence to warrant it, either upon the theory that the defendant did not actually cause the fires, or that, even if it did, it exercised due diligence in keeping its locomotives in good repair and in operating them in a proper manner. Judgment affirmed,.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.