Case Name: Youngblood v. Comer, receiver; Patterson v. Central Railroad and Banking Co. et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1895-08-12
Citations: 97 Ga. 152
Docket Number: 
Parties: Youngblood v. Comer, receiver. Patterson v. Central Railroad and Banking Co. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 97
Pages: 152–163

Head Matter:
Youngblood v. Comer, receiver. Patterson v. Central Railroad and Banking Co. et al.
1. The above stated eases are controlled by tbe decisions of this-court in the cases of Henderson v. Walker et al., receivers, 55 Ga. 481, and Thurman v. Cherokee R. Co., 56 Ga. 376, holding that when a railroad company is in the hands of and being operated by a receiver, neither the company nor the receiver is-subject to suit by an employee for personal injuries occasioned. by the negligence of a coemployee.
2. As the rule announced in the above stated cases has stood as good law for about twenty years and the General Assembly has passed no act changing the same, and a majority of this court are of the opinion that they were correctly decided in the first instance, they are, upon a review of the same, hereby affirmed.
Atkinson, J., being bound by the rulings in the cases cited, concurs in the judgments rendered, but dissents from the majority opinion declining to overrule those cases.
August 12, 1895.
Actions for damages. Before Judge Van Epps. City-court of Atlanta. September term, 1894.
Before Judge MacDonell. City court of Savannah. November term, 1894.
Arnold & O’Bryan and J. O. Reed, for plaintiff.
Dorsey, Brewster & Howell, for defendant.
Garrard, Meldrim & Newman and W. R. Hammond, for plaintiff. Laioton & Cunningham and T. M. Cunningham, Jr., for defendant.

Opinion:
Simmons, Chief Justice.
These two cases are controlled by the decisions of this court in the cases of Henderson v. Walker, 55 Ga. 481, and Thurman v. Cherokee Railroad, 56 Ga. 376. In the argument here leave was asked and granted to review these decisions. I am aware that other courts have taken a different view from that laid down by this court in the decisions referred to, but in my opinion the reasoning of Bleckley, J., in Henderson v. Walker, supra, has never been successfully answered. That case was decided twenty years ago, but the legislature has not yet seen fit to change the rule there laid down, nor, so far as I am aware, has any effort been made to do so. After careful consideration, a majority of the court, believing that the cases reviewed were well decided, decline to overrule them.
Judgment affirmed.