Austin v. City of Atlanta

113 S.E. 113, 28 Ga. App. 702
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJune 13, 1922
Docket13426
StatusPublished

This text of 113 S.E. 113 (Austin v. City of Atlanta) 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
Austin v. City of Atlanta, 113 S.E. 113, 28 Ga. App. 702 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Opinion

Luke, J.

The defendant was convicted of the violation 'of a municipal ordinance. The judge of the superior court did not err in denying and overruling the certiorari.

■Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur. The ordinance in question provides: It shall be unlawful for any dealer in coal or coke to sell same by weight in the City of Atlanta unless said coal or coke so sold shall have been weighed upon accurate scales of such dealer or of the party from whom he purchased or the official city scales, and certificate of such weight shall be delivered by said dealer to the purchaser, and any such dealer who shall sell any coal or coke in the City of Atlanta without weighing same, or who shall over-certify such weight to- an amount of 25 pounds on deliveries of less than 500 pounds, or of 50 pounds on deliveries above 500 ^pounds, shall upon conviction thereof before the recorder . . be punished by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100, or by labor on the streets,” etc.; “ and should it appear upon the hearing before the recorder that such shortage in weight was intended to cheat or defraud the purchaser, it shall be the duty of the recorder to bind the offender over . . for a violation of the State offense; provided, however, that the terms of this ordinance shall not apply to coal and coke sold in carload lots upon weights at mines, and where the same is not to be reweighed at point of delivery.” “ All coal dealers and all persons engaged in the hauling and delivering of coal shall, on delivery of a load to a purchaser, furnish said consignee or purchaser a written statement showing the name of the dealer, the name of the person hauling the coal, the weight of the coal, and tbe name of the driver.” (City Code of Atlanta of 1910, §§ 3003, 1903.) G. M. Ewing testified: Becently I bought some coal from the Standard Coal Company. I went to the office last Wednesday and gave an order for two tons at $7.75 per ton. I paid $15.50 for it then and there. This is the receipt, and it states, ‘ Received the coal without weighing.’ This receipt was given and the transaction took place at the office of the Standard Coal Company' . . in the city of Atlanta. . . The coal was to be delivered at 25 Larkin street in the city of Atlanta. They sent the coal out Friday afternoon. My wife received it. The coal was to be delivered on a two-ton truck. The young lady that waited on me for the Standard Coal Company told me that the trucks were weighed and measured to hold two tons and it would be a full load, but it was not delivered in a truck, but in a coal company’s wagon. . . 1 reweighed the coal with standard scales. . . I bought 4,000 pounds, two tons, and I only weighed out, when I weighed all the lot, 2,484 pounds, making 1,516 pounds short. Not- a piece of coal had been used. . . The receipt is as follows: ‘ Aug. 11, 1921. Atlanta, Ga. Received of G. M. Ewing fifteen & 50/100 dollars in payment for two tons Kentucky lump coal about 2 by 6 inches, to be delivered at 25 Larkin street, at convenience of Standard Coal Company, within 30 daj^s from this date, in accordance with the order given them, without reweighing in Atlanta, as per contract. This payment does not include any storage, and if storage is necessary, customers agree to pay the storage charge at time of delivery of coai. [Signed] Standard Coal Co., by C. L. Arnold.’ The contract referred to in the receipt is as follows: e Aug. 11, 1921. Atlanta, Ga. Standard Coal Company, Atlanta, Ga. Deliver to G. M. Ewing, No. 25 Larkin street, . . 2 tons Kentucky lump coal, about 2 by 6, at $7.75 per ton, large size. If storage is necessary I agree to pay for storage [at stated prices] . . This coal to be delivered at any time at convenience of the Standard Coal Company within thirty days from this date. It is understood and agreed that this coal is to be hauled to customer direct from car without reweighing in Atlanta. [Signed] G. M. Ewing.’ The dray ticket is as follows: * Atlanta, Ga. Aug. 12, 1921. G. M. Ewing, 25'Larkin street, received from Standard Coal Company (2) l'load lump as per contract order. Driver M. 31. [Signed] Mrs. Ewing.’ These two papers, the receipt and contract, together make the transaction. . . I understood and agreed that the coal was not to be reweighed but was to come out of the carload lot to me direct. . I just bought two tons of the coal to be delivered out of the car. I went to see the company and told the man who sent me the coal that I would give him the privilege of taking it back and he could reweigh it himself, but he has not done so yet; but he stated that he would make it good, that is, Mr. Thomas said so. Mr. Thomas was delivering coal for the Standard Coal Company.” A. J. Cloud testified, that he was a measuring inspector, that Mr. Ewing called him up in regard to the shortage in the coal, and that T. H. Austin, manager and proprietor of the Standard Coal Company, said that he did not weigh'his coal, but sold it from the car direct to the wagon to be delivered, and that the parties signed an agreement of the kind shown by the papers introduced in evidence. On the part of the defendants it was testified that their plan of dealing, in accordance with which the contract in question was made, was intended to enable the purchaser to obtain coal at a price lower than it would otherwise cost him. D. H. Thomas testified: “I superintended the delivery of this coal to Mr. Ewing. I was rushed up with the trucks, . . and borrowed four or five wagons and drivers, and they had instructions to load the wagons just as they did at the yards; and the wagon that went to Mr. Ewing’s house was a two-ton wagon filled up. . . The wagon was loaded full, a two-ton body, built for two tons. There was that much on the wagon when it left there. I have not been able to get hold of the negro that carried the coal. . . I have been trying to see him to see what became of the coal. . . I would swear there was mighty near two tons when it went out. I could tell there was two tons on the wagon when it went out, without its being weighed. . . Mr. Ewing stated that his wife said when the wagon got to his house it was not more than two thirds full, there was coal in the back and some in the front, but none in the middle. . . I didn’t know it until Monday, and then I went over to see Mr. Ewing and told him I was working for the Standard Coal Company and they held me responsible, and I didn’t want to send out short coal; *' I will take your word for it as a gentleman and will make it good. I am very sorry. I have been dealing in coal a long time and have not had a kick. This is the first complaint I have had, and I will certainly make it good.’ . . I sent him two tons to be estimated, and that much left the yard for him. He bought it under that contract and I was not to reweigh it. . . I have been handling coal by the carload this way off and on about ten years. I have been dividing these carloads by the railroad weights, and checking it out in these wagons in two tons and one ton. The division of the whole carload usually corresponds with the railroad weight; sometimes in a whole carload it is a ton to a ton and a half difference. We have no coal yard. . . The benefit to the customer by handling coal this way is that he gets a lower rate, gets his coal for less. For instance, this coal delivered on the yard would have cost him $9.50 a ton, and he got it at $7.75. That is. very close to the wholesale price.

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

Related

United Order of the Golden Cross v. Overton
83 So. 59 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Vaughn v. State
16 S.E. 64 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1892)
Miller v. Roberts
71 S.E. 927 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Mutual Life Insurance v. Durden
72 S.E. 295 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 S.E. 113, 28 Ga. App. 702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-1922.