Frazier v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 33 S.E. 996 (Ga. 1899). · Go Syfert
Search
Frazier v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 33 S.E. 996 (Ga. 1899). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
129 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Southland Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Myles (gactapp, 2001-11-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1904 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1904 1965 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Southland Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Myles (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence low
Co. v. Ga. Kraft Co., 258 Ga. 232 ( 367 SE2d 539 ) (1988); compare Frazier v. Ga. R. & Banking Co., 108 Ga. 807 ( 33 SE 996 ) (1899). 6 See Bennett Street Properties v. CSX Transp., 248 Ga. App. 686,688 (2) ( 548 SE2d 619 ) (2001); Russell Corp. v. BancBoston Financial Co., 209 Ga. App. 660, 663 (6) ( 434 SE2d 716 ) (1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Henderson v. Nolting First Mortgage Corp. (2×)
Ga. · 1938 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Frazier v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co., 108 Ga. 807 ( 33 S. E. 996 ); Evans v. Schofield's Sons Co., 120 Ga. 961 ( 48 S. E. 358 ); Robertson v. Carroll Furniture Co., 54 Ga. App. 841 ( 189 S. E. 273 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frazier
v.
Georgia Railroad and Banking Company
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jul 27, 1899.
33 S.E. 996
Samuel H. Sibley, for plaintilf., Joseph B. & Bryan Gumming, for defendant.
Lumpkin.
Cited by 63 opinions  |  Published
Lumpkin, P. J.

1. When a plaintiff’s right to recover depended upon the establishment of a particular fact, and the only proof offered for this purpose was circumstantial evidence from which the existence of such fact might be inferred, but which did not demand a finding to that effect, a recovery by the plaintiff was not lawful, when, by the positive and uncontradicted testimony of unimpeached witnesses, which was perfectly consistent with the circumstantial evidence relied on by the plaintiff, it was affirmatively shown that no such fact existed.

2. It results from an application of the above to the evidence appearing in the record of the present case that the judgment excepted to was right.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.