Ellington v. Bennett
Supreme Court of Georgia
Damages. Mill-flam. Nuisance. Prescription. Charge of Court. Before-Judge Buchanan. Payette Superior Court. August Term, 1876. Eeport unnecessary.
1Opinion of the Court
Bleckley, Judge.
■ 1. This was an action for overflowing land by means of a mill-dam. The court charged the jury that “the damage which the plaintiff would be entitled to recover, if he is entitled to recover any at all, are special damages, and must be proved; they must be proved in order to entitle the plaintiff to recover.” It is more than probable that, under instructions so definite and positive, the jury would understand that they could not give even nominal damages without some amount of actual damage was established by the evidence. The Code, in section 3070, declares that “general…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Parker & Edgarton v. FooteNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Parker v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1845
- Roundtree v. BrantleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1859
- Stein v. BurdenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1854
- Haas v. ChoussardTexas Supreme Court · 1856
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Goble v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Price v. High Shoals Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909
- Bradley v. GodwinCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1979
- Kerlin v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Vickers v. City of FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1960
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.