Bailey v. Georgia Railroad

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bailey v. Georgia Railroad

126 S.E. 896, 33 Ga. App. 526, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 570

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1925

Docket15367

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.E. 896 (Bailey v. Georgia Railroad) 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

Bailey v. Georgia Railroad, 126 S.E. 896, 33 Ga. App. 526, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 570 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinions

Pee Curiam.

1. “If the consignee rejects the goods, the carrier’s liability as to such ceases, and he becomes liable as warehouseman. As such warehouseman he is chargeable with the duty of notifying the consignor of the consignee’s refusal to accept the goods, and with the further duty of holding' the same subject to the order of the consignor.” Ala. R. Co. v. McKenzie, 139 Ga. 410, 412 (77 S. E. 647, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 18); American Sugar Refining Co. v. McGhee, 96 Ga. 27 (1) (21 S. E. 383).

2. But where, under a contract of purchase and sale, goods are shipped in a single lot to the vendee, who accepts them, pays the freight, and actually removes and retains a portion thereof, but afterwards returns to the carrier a part of the goods so removed, and, with himself designated as consignor, returns all the unused portion of the shipment to the vendor, he is liable to the carrier for storage charges which accrued on the goods after their acceptance by him and pending his' negotiations with the vendor for their acceptance and return, irrespective of any equities which might exist as between himself and the vendor. The court therefore did not err in directing a verdict against the defendant vendee for the storage charges sued for.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J.,‘and Bell, J., coneur. Stephens, J., dissents. 0. 0. King, for plaintiff in error. Miles W. Lewis, Reuben M. Tuclc, contra.

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

Pee Curiam.

1. “If the consignee rejects the goods, the carrier’s liability as to such ceases, and he becomes liable as warehouseman. As such warehouseman he is chargeable with the duty of notifying the consignor of the consignee’s refusal to accept the goods, and with the further duty of holding' the same subject to the order of the consignor.” Ala. R. Co. v. McKenzie, 139 Ga. 410, 412 (77 S. E. 647, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 18); American Sugar Refining Co. v. McGhee, 96 Ga. 27 (1) (21 S. E. 383).

2. But where, under a contract of purchase and sale, goods are shipped in a single lot to the vendee, who accepts them, pays the freight, and actually removes and retains a portion thereof, but afterwards returns to the carrier a part of the goods so removed, and, with himself designated as consignor, returns all the unused portion of the shipment to the vendor, he is liable to the carrier for storage charges which accrued on the goods after their acceptance by him and pending his' negotiations with the vendor for their acceptance and return, irrespective of any equities which might exist as between himself and the vendor. The court therefore did not err in directing a verdict against the defendant vendee for the storage charges sued for.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J.,‘and Bell, J., coneur. Stephens, J., dissents. 0. 0. King, for plaintiff in error. Miles W. Lewis, Reuben M. Tuclc, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 896, 33 Ga. App. 526, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-georgia-railroad-gactapp-1925.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack