Bibb Manufacturing Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

132 S.E. 129, 35 Ga. App. 43, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 547
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedFebruary 13, 1926
Docket16624
StatusPublished

This text of 132 S.E. 129 (Bibb Manufacturing Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.) 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
Bibb Manufacturing Co. v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 132 S.E. 129, 35 Ga. App. 43, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 547 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The provision in a bill of lading, that the carrier’s responsibility for goods in an interstate shipment over the lines of connecting carriers will terminate upon the storage of the goods by the terminal carrier in a public or licensed warehouse after the expiration of forty-eight hours from the time when.the person entitled to receive the goods has been notified of their arrival and has failed to remove them, constitutes a contract binding upon the shipper and the delivering carrier, by the terms of which the carrier is released from liability for any loss or damage to the goods after their storage in a warehouse in compliance with this provision of the bill of lading. Model Mill Co. v. Carolina, C. & O. Ry., 136 Tenn. 211 (5) (188 S. W. 936) ; Efland Hosiery Mills v. Hines, 184 N. C. 356 (114 S. E. 472) ; Gregg v. Illinois Central R. Co., 147 Ill. 350 (35 N. E. 343, 37 Am. St. R. 238) ; 4 R. C. L. 763, § 229.

2. In a suit by the shipper against the terminal carrier for a conversion of the goods by a warehouseman with whom the defendant had stored them after their arrival at the point of destination, where it appeared that the goods, which had been shipped under a bill of lading containing the above provision, had been stored by the defendant in a public licensed warehouse after notice, as required by the provision in the bill of lading, had been given by the carrier to the person entitled to receive the goods and who had failed to remove them, a finding for the " defendant was authorized.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur. Jones, Parle & Johnston, for plaintiff. L. D. Moore, for defendant.

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

Related

Hosiery Mills v. . Hines
114 S.E. 472 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1922)
Gregg v. Illinois Central Railroad
35 N.E. 343 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)
Model Mill Co. v. Carolina, C. & O. Ry. Co.
136 Tenn. 211 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
132 S.E. 129, 35 Ga. App. 43, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bibb-manufacturing-co-v-cleveland-cincinnati-chicago-st-louis-gactapp-1926.