Barnum & Bailey Shows Inc. v. Himmelweit
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from city court of Columbus — Judge Tigner. November 28, 1914. ■
1Opinion of the CourtWade, J.
1. The charge as a whole sufficiently presented the points at issue in a general way; and since there was no timely request in writing for the more specific instructions desired in connection with the 4th, 5th and 6th grounds of the motion for a new trial, the plaintiff in error can not now be heard to complain of such omissions.
2. The ownership of the wagon which inflicted the injury sued for, as well as the agency or connection of the driver thereof with the defendant in the court below, might be inferred by the jury from facts and circumstances in proof, as well as from direct testimony,…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Minter v. KentCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Clark v. Atlanta Veterans Transportation, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Southern Railway Co. v. HullenderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- English v. Yellow Cab Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1969
- Ware v. LamarCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.