Frazier v. Georgia Railroad & Banking Co.

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.