Graham v. Savannah Elec. Co., 91 S.E. 912 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917). · Go Syfert
Search
Graham v. Savannah Elec. Co., 91 S.E. 912 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Graham
v.
Savannah Electric Company
7984.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
Mar 19, 1917.
Published opinion
91 S.E. 912
1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 203
Oliver & Oliver, L. A. Pinhussohn, for plaintiff,, Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, for defendant,
Wade.
Published
Wade, C. J.

The adjudication of this ease is controlled in principle by - the decision in Bird v. Savannah Electric Co., 16 Ga. App. 453 (83 S. E. 621), as the material facts in both petitións are substantially the same. There was no error in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the suit. Judgment affirmed.

George and Luke, JJ., eoneur. Oliver & Oliver, L. A. Pinhussohn, for plaintiff,

cited: Turner v. City Electric Ry. Co., 134 Ga. 869; Macon Ry. Co. v. Vining, 120 Ga. 511; s. e. 123 Ga. 770; Ga. Ry. & Elec. Co. v. McAllister, 126 Ga. 447; Augusta R. Co. v. Glover, 92 Ga. 133; Wilkes v. W. & A. R. Co., 109 Ga. 794; Ga. R. Co. v. Usry, 82 Ga. 54; Pacetti v. Central Ry. Co., 6 Ga. App. 97 (1); (distinguished) Bird v. Savannah Elec. Co., 16 Ga. App. 453.

Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams, for defendant,

cited: Bird v. Savannah Elec. Co., supra; Carroll v. N. O. Ry., 132 La. 683; Fuller v. Detroit Ry., 142 N. W. 572; Rose v. Boston Ry., 194 Mass. 415 (80 N. E. 580).