Legal Opinion

Macon, Dublin & Savannah Railroad v. Jordan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 9, 1925No. 16474PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

The plaintiff’s counsel invoke an application of the doctrine of *352the “turntable eases/ citing Ferguson v. Columbus & Rome Ry., 75 Ga. 637 (2). In the case of Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Beavers, 113 Ga. 398 (39 S. E. 82, 54 L. R. A. 314), this doctrine was exhaustively discussed, and the Supreme Court adopted “the policy of limiting the doctrine, not strictly to turntable cases alone, but of refusing to extend it to cases which upon their facts do not come ‘strictly and fully within the principle upon which those cases rest. Manos v. Myers-Miller…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. BrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
  2. Savannah, Florida & Western Railway Co. v. BeaversSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
  3. Branan v. WimsattCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1924
  4. Ferguson v. Columbus & Rome RailwaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1885
  5. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. CorbettSupreme Court of Georgia · 1920

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. May v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2014
  2. Augusta Amusements, Inc. v. PowellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956
  3. Emery v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1941
  4. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. BrackinSupreme Court of Georgia · 1959
  5. Mobley v. City of MonroeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1927

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API