Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Brown

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Brown

155 S.E. 787, 42 Ga. App. 278, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 342

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 11, 1930

Docket20786

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 155 S.E. 787 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Brown) 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

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Brown, 155 S.E. 787, 42 Ga. App. 278, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. A common carrier may collect freight charges on shipments either from the consignor or the consignee, unless it has entered into a special contract binding .itself to collect the charges from one of them only. And a mere agreement between the carrier and the consignee of the shipment in. the instant case that the consignee should be put on the carrier’s authorized credit list for all shipments billed to the consignee, and the further fact that the shipment in question was put upon the side-track of the- consignee and credit for the freight charges was extended to the consignee did not constitute such-a special contract, where it further appears that the shipment was never accepted by the consignee, and that, on the order of the consignor, the goods were reshipped to the consignor. See, in this connection, Seaboard Air-Line Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 28 Ga. App. 639 (112 S. E. 652), and cit.; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 147 Ga. 646 (95 S. E. 251), and cit. .

[279]*279Decided November 11, 1930. B. G. Hartsfield, for plaintiff. A. B. Conger, for defendant.

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the railway company was entitled to a verdict in its favor for the amount sued for, and the court erred in' directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloockoorth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. A common carrier may collect freight charges on shipments either from the consignor or the consignee, unless it has entered into a special contract binding .itself to collect the charges from one of them only. And a mere agreement between the carrier and the consignee of the shipment in. the instant case that the consignee should be put on the carrier’s authorized credit list for all shipments billed to the consignee, and the further fact that the shipment in question was put upon the side-track of the- consignee and credit for the freight charges was extended to the consignee did not constitute such-a special contract, where it further appears that the shipment was never accepted by the consignee, and that, on the order of the consignor, the goods were reshipped to the consignor. See, in this connection, Seaboard Air-Line Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 28 Ga. App. 639 (112 S. E. 652), and cit.; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 147 Ga. 646 (95 S. E. 251), and cit. .

[279]*279Decided November 11, 1930. B. G. Hartsfield, for plaintiff. A. B. Conger, for defendant.

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts of the instant case, the railway company was entitled to a verdict in its favor for the amount sued for, and the court erred in' directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment reversed.

Luke and Bloockoorth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.E. 787, 42 Ga. App. 278, 1930 Ga. App. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-brown-gactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack