Barnard v. Howard Sober, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Barnard v. Howard Sober, Inc.

38 S.E.2d 153, 226 N.C. 392, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 447

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 22, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 S.E.2d 153 (Barnard v. Howard Sober, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnard v. Howard Sober, Inc., 38 S.E.2d 153, 226 N.C. 392, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 447 (N.C. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Denny, J.

The primary question involved on this appeal is whether the plaintiff in the trial below, offered any competent evidence tending to show that the engine in the plaintiff’s 1941 Ford bus was in good condition when delivered to the agent of the defendant on 1 June, 1944, at Bichmond, Ind., for transportation to Greensboro, N. C.

The defendant insists that the receipt given the Wayne Works, to the effect that the property delivered to its agent was in good condition, is limited to the items described on the reverse side of the receipt and does not include the chassis or the engine of the bus. We do not so hold, in view of the fact that the itemized list on the reverse of the receipt states that it is continued on the next page and on the next page information is *395 given, as to the body, model, chassis and engine of the bus. We think the engine was included in the list of items for which the defendant issued its receipt and stated therein that, “all of the same are delivered to the undersigned in good condition and as set forth.” Merchant v. Lassiter, 224 N. C., 343, 30 S. E. (2d), 217; Hutchins v. Taylor-Buick Co., 198 N. C., 777, 153 S. E., 397; Brown v. Express Co., 192 N. C., 25, 133 S. E., 414; Beck v. Wilkins, 179 N. C., 231, 102 S. E., 313. Moreover, under the Rules and Regulations governing a shipment of this character, among other things, it is provided: “Carrier will not accept for transportation under its own power, any vehicle which due to its mechanical condition, in the judgment of the carrier, cannot be operated in that manner or which cannot, due to size or special construction, be safely handled by the carrier in full compliance with all state laws and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission.”

The defendant denies that it is a common carrier and while there is evidence tending to show otherwise, we need not decide on this appeal whether the defendant is a common carrier or a bailee for hire. In either event, we think the evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The judgment of the court below is

Reversed.

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

Denny, J.

The primary question involved on this appeal is whether the plaintiff in the trial below, offered any competent evidence tending to show that the engine in the plaintiff’s 1941 Ford bus was in good condition when delivered to the agent of the defendant on 1 June, 1944, at Bichmond, Ind., for transportation to Greensboro, N. C.

The defendant insists that the receipt given the Wayne Works, to the effect that the property delivered to its agent was in good condition, is limited to the items described on the reverse side of the receipt and does not include the chassis or the engine of the bus. We do not so hold, in view of the fact that the itemized list on the reverse of the receipt states that it is continued on the next page and on the next page information is *395 given, as to the body, model, chassis and engine of the bus. We think the engine was included in the list of items for which the defendant issued its receipt and stated therein that, “all of the same are delivered to the undersigned in good condition and as set forth.” Merchant v. Lassiter, 224 N. C., 343, 30 S. E. (2d), 217; Hutchins v. Taylor-Buick Co., 198 N. C., 777, 153 S. E., 397; Brown v. Express Co., 192 N. C., 25, 133 S. E., 414; Beck v. Wilkins, 179 N. C., 231, 102 S. E., 313. Moreover, under the Rules and Regulations governing a shipment of this character, among other things, it is provided: “Carrier will not accept for transportation under its own power, any vehicle which due to its mechanical condition, in the judgment of the carrier, cannot be operated in that manner or which cannot, due to size or special construction, be safely handled by the carrier in full compliance with all state laws and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission.”

The defendant denies that it is a common carrier and while there is evidence tending to show otherwise, we need not decide on this appeal whether the defendant is a common carrier or a bailee for hire. In either event, we think the evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The judgment of the court below is

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.E.2d 153, 226 N.C. 392, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnard-v-howard-sober-inc-nc-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack