Adams Express Co. v. Mellichamp

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adams Express Co. v. Mellichamp

75 S.E. 673, 11 Ga. App. 448, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 434

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 17, 1912

Docket3225

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 673 (Adams Express Co. v. Mellichamp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams Express Co. v. Mellichamp, 75 S.E. 673, 11 Ga. App. 448, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 434 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

In view, of the ruling of the Supreme Court, in answer to questions certified to it by this court (138 Ga. 443, 75 S. E. 596), that there is no valid distinction between the facts of the present case and those in the case of Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 (67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. Rep. 227),. and that neither the plaintiff’s right to recover nor the amount of such recovery is affected by section 10 of the interstate-commerce act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 382 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3161]), as amended June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1293]), or by the act of Congress known as the “Elkins act” (Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847), as amended June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1309]), the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Russell, J.

In view, of the ruling of the Supreme Court, in answer to questions certified to it by this court (138 Ga. 443, 75 S. E. 596), that there is no valid distinction between the facts of the present case and those in the case of Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 (67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. Rep. 227),. and that neither the plaintiff’s right to recover nor the amount of such recovery is affected by section 10 of the interstate-commerce act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 382 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3161]), as amended June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1293]), or by the act of Congress known as the “Elkins act” (Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847), as amended June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1309]), the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 S.E. 673, 11 Ga. App. 448, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-express-co-v-mellichamp-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack