Cheeves v. Danielly
Supreme Court of Georgia
Accord and Satisfaction. Charge of Court. Damages. WaterOourses. Evidence. Before Judge Stewart. Monroe Superior Court. August Term, 1884. To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add the grounds of the motion for new trial, which were as follows: ,(1.) Because the court permitted a witness to testify as to the condition of the plaintiff’s bottom land from 1840 to the time it was sold to the plaintiff in 1864. — Defendant objected, on the ground that…
Read the full summary
Accord and Satisfaction. Charge of Court. Damages. WaterOourses. Evidence. Before Judge Stewart. Monroe Superior Court. August Term, 1884. To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add the grounds of the motion for new trial, which were as follows: ,(1.) Because the court permitted a witness to testify as to the condition of the plaintiff’s bottom land from 1840 to the time it was sold to the plaintiff in 1864. — Defendant objected, on the ground that this was not the proper method of proving damage. (2.) Because the court charged as follows • u If you believe defendant…
1Opinion of the Court
Jackson, Chief Justice.
This is an action orought by Danielly vs. Cheeves for the recovery of damages alleged to have been done by Cheeves’s cutting a ditch, which turned a smaller stream into one larger, bordering on Danielly’s, at a point much higher up the bordering stream than it formerly ran into it; and thus by banking sand and filling the bed of this stream with it, and also by pouring and backing sand and water on the plaintiff’s land, he had been damagéd. The ditch was cut through Cheeves’s own land and a consenting neighbor’s land, for the purpose of draining Oheeves’s bottoms, but…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Costley v. LongCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Ray Jones, Inc. v. CowanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1976