Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Stamps

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Stamps

87 S.E. 702, 17 Ga. App. 453, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 676

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 10, 1916

Docket6363

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 702 (Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Stamps) 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. Stamps, 87 S.E. 702, 17 Ga. App. 453, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 676 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, J.

1. In an action against a common carrier for a failure safely to transport and deliver goods committed to it by a shipper, the carrier having received the shipment in good order and delivered it to the consignee, or the transferee of the consignee, in a damaged condition, particular acts of negligence nee'd not be alleged, and if alleged may be treated as surplusage. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Warfield, 129 Ga. 473 (59 S. E. 234); Southern Express Co. v. Bailey, 7 Ga. App. 331 (66 S. E. 960).

2. The court did not err in refusing to give the requested charge.

3. Whilé there were some errors in the charge of the court, in the light of the amount of the verdict returned they do not require a new trial.

4. There was some evidence to support the verdict, and, the trial judge having approved it, this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Broyles, J.

1. In an action against a common carrier for a failure safely to transport and deliver goods committed to it by a shipper, the carrier having received the shipment in good order and delivered it to the consignee, or the transferee of the consignee, in a damaged condition, particular acts of negligence nee'd not be alleged, and if alleged may be treated as surplusage. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Warfield, 129 Ga. 473 (59 S. E. 234); Southern Express Co. v. Bailey, 7 Ga. App. 331 (66 S. E. 960).

2. The court did not err in refusing to give the requested charge.

3. Whilé there were some errors in the charge of the court, in the light of the amount of the verdict returned they do not require a new trial.

4. There was some evidence to support the verdict, and, the trial judge having approved it, this court will not interfere.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 702, 17 Ga. App. 453, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-of-georgia-railway-co-v-stamps-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack