Case Name: Savannah and Northwestern Railway v. Gnann
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1918-01-29
Citations: 21 Ga. App. 671
Docket Number: 8416
Parties: Savannah and Northwestern Railway v. Gnann.
Judges: Wade, O. J., and' Jenkins, J., concur.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
8416.
Savannah and Northwestern Railway v. Gnann.
Decided January 29, 1918.
Action for damages; from city court of Springfield — Judge Shearouse. December 27, 1916.
Hitch & Denmark, John G. Kennedy, for plaintiff in error,
cited: Gainesville éc. R. Co. v. Edmondson, 101 Ga. 747; Southern Ry. Go. v. Myers, 108 Ga. 164; Southern Ry. Go. v. Pace, 114 Ga. 712; Talmadge V. Central Ry. Go., 125 Ga. 400; Southern Ry. Go. v. Herrington, 128 Ga. 438; Ga., Fla. & Ala. Ry. Go. v. Summer, 133 Ga. 134; Seaboard &c. Ry. v. Jarrell, 145 Ga. 688; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. McRee, 11 Ga. App. 790-93; Atlantic Coast Line R. Go. v. McElmurray, 12 Ga. App. 233; s. c. 14 Ga. App. 197; Ga. Ry. & Elec. Go. v. Harris, 1 Ga. App. 714, 716; Ga. >S'. & F. Ry. Go. v. Thompson, 111 Ga. 731; Seaboard &c. Ry. v. Walthour, 117 Ga. 427; Macon &c. R. Go. v. Revis, 119 Ga. 333; Ivey v. L. & N. R. Go. 434 (4).
Strange & Metis, contra, cited:
Southern Ry. Go. v. Herring-ton, supra; Atlantic Coast Line R. Go. v. McRee, supra; Southern Ry. Go. v. Thompson, 129 Ga. 367 (8); W. & A. R. Co. v. Tate, 129 Ga. 526 (2); Southern By. Co.-v. Black, 141 Ga. 39; Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. v. Davis, 5 Ga. App. 214 (2), 217; Atlantic Coast Line B. Co. v. McElmurray, supra.

Opinion:
Luke, J.
The grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial in this case were abandoned, and the case is here on the general ground that the verdict for the plaintiff was unauthorized by the evidence. The evidence for the plaintiff was circumstantial that an engine of the railroad company set out the fire which damaged him as alleged in his petition. The evidence for the defendant was positive and uncontradicted that the engines alleged to have set out the fire were equipped with proper spark-arresters and were not emitting and did not emit sparks. Tinder the decision in the case of Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Jarrell, 145 Ga. 688 (89 S. E. 718), the court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Wade, O. J., and' Jenkins, J., concur.