Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Alexander

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Alexander

144 S.E. 150, 38 Ga. App. 431, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 270

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 27, 1928

Docket18610

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E. 150 (Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Alexander) 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

Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Alexander, 144 S.E. 150, 38 Ga. App. 431, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 270 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

This ease is controlled by the ruling of this court in Bradfield v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Ga. App. 657 (101 S. E. 776), which is very similar in its facts, except that the present case is somewhat stronger for the plaintiff, in that the presence of the deleterious foreign substance alleged to have been contained in the bottled beverage could not, in this case, have been brought about by negligence on the part of any intermediate dealer, as might have been the ease with the glass contained in the bottle involved in the Bradfield case. In the instant case the foreign substance must necessarily have been in the bottle at the time it left the custody of the defendant bottler. Upon a review of the Bradfield case at the request of the plaintiff in error, the principles of law therein enunciated are adhered to as sound. See, in this connection, 47 A. L. R. 149.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

This ease is controlled by the ruling of this court in Bradfield v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Ga. App. 657 (101 S. E. 776), which is very similar in its facts, except that the present case is somewhat stronger for the plaintiff, in that the presence of the deleterious foreign substance alleged to have been contained in the bottled beverage could not, in this case, have been brought about by negligence on the part of any intermediate dealer, as might have been the ease with the glass contained in the bottle involved in the Bradfield case. In the instant case the foreign substance must necessarily have been in the bottle at the time it left the custody of the defendant bottler. Upon a review of the Bradfield case at the request of the plaintiff in error, the principles of law therein enunciated are adhered to as sound. See, in this connection, 47 A. L. R. 149.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E. 150, 38 Ga. App. 431, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlanta-coca-cola-bottling-co-v-alexander-gactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack