Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe

141 S.E. 214, 37 Ga. App. 636, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 543
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 11, 1928
Docket18501
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 S.E. 214 (Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe) 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
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe, 141 S.E. 214, 37 Ga. App. 636, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 543 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928).

Opinion

Bkovles, O. J.

1. Where a consignee of freight refuses to accept goods on account of damage done to them while in transit by a common carrier, and the goods are subsequently thrown back on the hands of the consignor, the consignor has the right to bring action against the carrier for such damage. Savannah, Florida & Western Ry. Co. v. Commercial Guano Co., 103 Ga. 590 (1), 593 (30 S. E. 555). Under this ruling the consignor in the instant case had the right to bring the suit against the defendant carrier, and the demurrer to the petition was properly overruled.

2. “Where in a suit by a shipper against a common carrier for loss or [637]*637damage to goods in transit it appears from the evidence that some of the goods were not totally damaged or destroyed, but were of some value, and the evidence fails to furnish sufficient data from which a jury might infer the value of the damaged articles, the verdict [covering damages for all articles in the shipment whether totally or partially destroyed] is without evidence to support it.” Southern Express Co. v. Bass, 24 Ga. App. 742 (102 S. E. 168). Applying the principle of this ruling to the facts of the instant case, it is obvious that the verdict in favor of the plaintiff shipper, for the full value of all the articles in the shipment (14 stationary batteries) at the time they were delivered to the carrier for shipment, was not authorized by the evidence, and that the court erred in refusing to grant a new trial.

Decided January 11, 1928. W. E. Miller, for plaintiff in error. W. Inman Gurry, contra.

Judgment reversed.

Lulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Southern Railway Co. v. Black
186 S.E. 779 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1936)
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe
159 S.E. 760 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Anderson
158 S.E. 333 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 S.E. 214, 37 Ga. App. 636, 1928 Ga. App. LEXIS 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-line-railroad-v-hogrefe-gactapp-1928.