Fulcher v. Cent. of Georgia Ry. Co., 35 S.E. 280 (Ga. 1900). · Go Syfert
Search
Fulcher v. Cent. of Georgia Ry. Co., 35 S.E. 280 (Ga. 1900). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Armuchee Pants Manufacturing Co. v. Juilliard & Co.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Armuchee Pants Manufacturing Co. v. Juilliard & Co.
unknown court · 1914 · signal: see · confidence high
See Savannah Ice Delivery Co. v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 110 Ga. 142 ( 35 S. E. 280 ); Macon Gas Light & Water Co. v. Freeman, 4 Ga. App. 463 ( 61 S. E. 884 ). 3.
discussed Cited "see" Paxson Bros. v. Butterick Publishing Co.
Ga. · 1913 · signal: see · confidence high
See Savannah Ice Co. v. American Transit Co., 110 Ga. 142 ( 35 S. E. 280 ), where it was held that failure to make payments for articles delivered under a contract during a series of years, to be delivered in instalments and paid for monthly, entitles the vendor to rescind the contract.
discussed Cited "see" Augusta Factory v. Mente & Co.
Ohio Ct. App. · 1909 · signal: see · confidence high
See, in this connection, Savannah Ice Co. v. American Refrigerator Co., 110 Ga. 142 ( 35 S. E. 280 ); Branch v. Palmer, 65 Ga. 210; Henderson Elevator Co, v. North Ga. Milling Co., 126 Ga. 279 ( 55 S. E. 50 ); Gude & Walker v. Bailey Co., 4 Ga. App. 226 ( 61 S. E. 135 ); Norrington v. Wright, 115 U. S. 188 (6 Sup. Ct. 12, 29 L. ed. 366); Cleveland Rolling Mill Co. v. Rhodes, 121 U. S. 255 (7 Sup. Ct. 882, 30 L. ed. 920); McGrath v. Gegner, 77 Md. 331 ( 26 Atl. 502 , 39 Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fulcher
v.
Central of Georgia Railway Company
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Mar 2, 1900.
35 S.E. 280
R. W. Sheppard, Lester & Ravenel, and Gignilliat & Stubbs, for plaintiff. Lawton & Cunningham and T. M. Cunningham Jr., for defendant.
Simmons.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Simmons, C. J.

The evidence showing that the plaintiff could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the defendant company, if the latter was negligent, the court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concurring.