Legal Opinion

Linenkohl v. Curington

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided April 19, 1924No. 14865Published

1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.

1. Assuming, under the rulings made in Bolden v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 130 Ga. 456 (60 S. E. 1047), and Morris v. Charleston &c. Ry. Co., 22 Ga. App. 186 (95 S. E. 748), that in the instant action by a servant against his masters for damages on account of injuries arising from the sudden collapse of a jack furnished to the plaintiff by the defendants, and which at the time of the accident was supporting an automobile on which the plaintiff was working, the defects alleged, so far as they consisted of the worn condition of the notches and the click or finger intended to fit into them and by…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Cochrell v. Langley Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  2. Southern States Portland Cement Co. v. HelmsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1907
  3. Hubbard v. Macon Railway & Light Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  4. Williams v. Garbutt Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  5. Biederman v. Montezuma Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923

3 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