American Railway Express Co. v. Bailey

Supreme Court of Georgia

American Railway Express Co. v. Bailey

113 S.E. 551, 154 Ga. 96, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 312

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedAugust 18, 1922

DocketNo. 2826

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 551 (American Railway Express Co. v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Railway Express Co. v. Bailey, 113 S.E. 551, 154 Ga. 96, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 312 (Ga. 1922).

Pincite

Opinions

Fish, C. J.

1. Where an agent of a shipper presented a p’aekage to the agent of an express company for intrastate shipment, and neither agent knew the contents or the value of the package offered, and the shipper’s agent was informed by the agent of the carrier that the latter must know the value of the contents of the package before it would undertake its transportation, and where the agent of the express company suggested orally a valuation of $50, whereupon the shipper’s agent replied that that amount would be “ a sufficient valuation,” and signed a written express receipt in which $50 was inserted as the shipper’s declared value of the package, and the express company based its transportation rate on such valuation;' and where the package was lost or destroyed in the course of transportation, and the shipper brought suit to recover the true value of the contents of the package, which was alleged to be $638: Held, that the valuation placed upon the package by the two agents was an arbitrary valuation, and the shipper would be entitled to recover the real value of the package proved on the trial of the ease. So. Ex. Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 (67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. R. 227); Adams Ex. Co. v. Mellichamp, 138 Ga. 443 (75 S. E. 596, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 976); Georgia So. etc. R. Co. v. Johnson, 121 Ga. 231, 238 (48 S. E. 807); Central etc. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 124 Ga. 322 (52 S. E. 679, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 898, 110 Am. St. R. 170, 4 Ann. Cas. 128).

2. Under the record in this case the Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the judgment of the trial court, which directed a verdict for the plaintiff in error in the sum of $50, the amount stated in the express receipt; and in holding that the arbitrary valuation agreed upon between the agent of the shipper and the agent of the carrier can not be held as a matter of law to be a bona fide effort between the carrier and the shipper to fix the value of the package. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, -J., absent, and Bech, P. J., and Hines, J., dissenting. Powers & Powers, contra.

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

Fish, C. J.

1. Where an agent of a shipper presented a p’aekage to the agent of an express company for intrastate shipment, and neither agent knew the contents or the value of the package offered, and the shipper’s agent was informed by the agent of the carrier that the latter must know the value of the contents of the package before it would undertake its transportation, and where the agent of the express company suggested orally a valuation of $50, whereupon the shipper’s agent replied that that amount would be “ a sufficient valuation,” and signed a written express receipt in which $50 was inserted as the shipper’s declared value of the package, and the express company based its transportation rate on such valuation;' and where the package was lost or destroyed in the course of transportation, and the shipper brought suit to recover the true value of the contents of the package, which was alleged to be $638: Held, that the valuation placed upon the package by the two agents was an arbitrary valuation, and the shipper would be entitled to recover the real value of the package proved on the trial of the ease. So. Ex. Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 (67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. R. 227); Adams Ex. Co. v. Mellichamp, 138 Ga. 443 (75 S. E. 596, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 976); Georgia So. etc. R. Co. v. Johnson, 121 Ga. 231, 238 (48 S. E. 807); Central etc. Ry. Co. v. Hall, 124 Ga. 322 (52 S. E. 679, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 898, 110 Am. St. R. 170, 4 Ann. Cas. 128).

2. Under the record in this case the Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the judgment of the trial court, which directed a verdict for the plaintiff in error in the sum of $50, the amount stated in the express receipt; and in holding that the arbitrary valuation agreed upon between the agent of the shipper and the agent of the carrier can not be held as a matter of law to be a bona fide effort between the carrier and the shipper to fix the value of the package. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Gilbert, -J., absent, and Bech, P. J., and Hines, J., dissenting. Powers & Powers, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 551, 154 Ga. 96, 1922 Ga. LEXIS 312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-railway-express-co-v-bailey-ga-1922.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack