Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Heaton Bros.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Heaton Bros.

107 S.E. 628, 27 Ga. App. 237, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 797

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 17, 1921

Docket12061

StatusPublished

This text of 107 S.E. 628 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Heaton Bros.) 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. Heaton Bros., 107 S.E. 628, 27 Ga. App. 237, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 797 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where the process was directed to the Central of Georgia Railway Company, which filed a plea in bar of the suit, but did not except to the process, a legal verdict under the pleadings may be rendered against the defendant. The suit was not subject to dismissal on motion of the defendant in the trial court; nor is a direct exception to the verdict and judgment meritorious upon the ground that the original summons in the justice’s court, upon which suit was based, was not directed to the director-general of railroads.

[238]*238Decided June 17, 1921.

Appeal; from Carroll superior court —Judge Terrell. October 26, 1920.

J. L. Smith, Willis Smith, for plaintiff in error. Raymond Robinson, Boykin & Boykin, contra.

2. This being a suit by a shipper against the defendant railroad company, to recover an overcharge of freight paid by the shipper to the defendant, the admission in evidence of the receipted bills delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, showing the amount paid, was not subject to objection upon the ground that they were secondary evidence. They were properly admitted as original evidence of admissions made by the defendant.

3. The evidence demanded the inference that the plaintiff paid to the defendant company the overcharge, sued for; and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Where the process was directed to the Central of Georgia Railway Company, which filed a plea in bar of the suit, but did not except to the process, a legal verdict under the pleadings may be rendered against the defendant. The suit was not subject to dismissal on motion of the defendant in the trial court; nor is a direct exception to the verdict and judgment meritorious upon the ground that the original summons in the justice’s court, upon which suit was based, was not directed to the director-general of railroads.

[238]*238Decided June 17, 1921.

Appeal; from Carroll superior court —Judge Terrell. October 26, 1920.

J. L. Smith, Willis Smith, for plaintiff in error. Raymond Robinson, Boykin & Boykin, contra.

2. This being a suit by a shipper against the defendant railroad company, to recover an overcharge of freight paid by the shipper to the defendant, the admission in evidence of the receipted bills delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, showing the amount paid, was not subject to objection upon the ground that they were secondary evidence. They were properly admitted as original evidence of admissions made by the defendant.

3. The evidence demanded the inference that the plaintiff paid to the defendant company the overcharge, sued for; and the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Hill, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 628, 27 Ga. App. 237, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-heaton-bros-gactapp-1921.