Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Lusk
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Lusk
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Beoyles, O. J.
1. “The testimony of a party who offers himself as a witness in his own behalf is to be construed most strongly against Mm, when it is self-contradictory, vague, or equivocal. And unless *100 there be other evidence tending to establish his right to recover, he is not entitled to a finding in his favor, if that version of his testimony the most unfavorable to him shows that the verdict should be against him.” Long Cigar Grocery Co. v. Harvey, 33 Ga. App. 236 (2), 237 ( 125 S. E. 870 ), and cit.
Decided July 14, 1927. Tye, Peeples & Tye, Neel & Neel, for plaintiff in error. J. B. Whitaker, contra.
2. Under the above-stated ruling and the facts of the instant case, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, and the verdict in his favor was contrary to law and the evidence.
Judgment reversed.
Luke and Bloodioorth, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.