Central Railroad v. Curtis
Supreme Court of Georgia
Practice. Brief of evidence, Continuance. Railroads. Negligence. New trial. Before Judge Miller. Houston superior court.
Read the full summary
Practice. Brief of evidence, Continuance. Railroads. Negligence. New trial. Before Judge Miller. Houston superior court. October term, 1890. Curtis brought his action for damages for personal injuries against the railroad company, alleging that-he was travelling along a public street in the town of Port Valley, driviug a horse hitched to his buggy or cart and leading another horse, and as he neared the public crossing where the railway crossed the street, it being the principal crossing in the town and in the business part thereof, a train of cars was standing completely obstructing the…
1Opinion of the Court
Bleckley, Chief Justice.
1. Under the orders taken in this case (for the sub*424stance of which see the official report), the judge who heard the motion for a new trial had power to approve the brief of evidence and allow it to be filed at or before the hearing. He may not have been bound to do so after the lapse of so long a time since the trial, for in such matters a judge may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, construe the terms of an order strictly or liberally, adopting the one construction or the other according as the ends of justice may require in the light of all the attendant…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Jackson v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1900
- Little v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Azar v. THUMA, Alias THOMASSupreme Court of Georgia · 1950
- Bates v. British America Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Wick v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.