Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Co. v. Miller
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hayes v. Town of Cedar Grove (W. Va. 1946)
- Gershon & Green v. Mendel (Ga. Ct. App. 1928)
- Savannah River Lumber Co. v. Smith (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
- Alabama Consolidated Coal & Iron Co. v. Heald (Ala. 1908)
- Thomas v. Clarkson (Ga. 1906)
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. Where an action is brought solely upon a common-law liability, it is error to allow an amendment thereto which seeks a recovery upon a statutory liability. Such an amendment would add a new and distinct cause of action. Exposition Cotton Mills v. Railroad Co., 83 Ga. 441; Bolton v. Railway Co., 83 Ga. 659; Parmelee v. Railway Co., 78 Ga. 239.
2. In an action in this State by a servant against his master for an injury occurring in another State by reason of defective machinery furnished by the master, it will be presumed, unless the contrary be shown, that the common law prevails in such other State. The declaration in such case, brought under the common law, must allege, not only that the servant was ignorant of the defect, but also that he could not have discovered it by ordinary diligence, and that the master knew or ought to have known of it.
3. Under the principles ruled above, tlie demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition should have been sustained, and the subsequent trial was a nullity.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.