Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Co. v. Buchan

71 So. 842, 71 Fla. 575
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided April 28, 1916·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Buchan recovered a judgment against the carrier for a carload of watermelons which the carrier did not on June 8th, 1912, “take and deliver.”

A motion is made here to strike the bill of exceptions on the ground that the motion for new trial, though made during,the term of court, was disposed of in vacation. The motion is made upon the theory that the court is without jurisdiction to pass upon a motion for new trial except in term time.

Sections 2 and 3, Chapter 5403 Acts of 1905, are as follows:

“Sec. 2. The Judge shall have the power to hear and determine any motion for new trial in vacation and any such adjudication thereof in vacation shall be entered in the minutes of the court and shall have the like force and effect as if made during term time.
“Sec. 3. The provisions of this act shall not apply to criminal causes.” Sec. 1343a Compiled Laws of 1914.

The motion for new trial having been, as contemplated by the statute, “made within four days after the rendition of the verdict and during the same term,” and not having been disposed of during term time, the motion was properly disposed of during vacation. The motion to strike is denied.

The plaintiff testified that “I live at McCall, Florida. During June, 1912, I requested the Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Company to place a car for me on the siding at McCall to be loaded with watermelons. McCall is a non-agency station; that is, there is no agent kept at the station house, but patrons of the Railway Company [577] are accustomed to receiving goods from the conductors on freight trains or from the platform at the station where they are deposited by the conductors; and in making shipments the goods are tendered to the conductors on the freight train and he issues a way bill or bill of lading therefor. This was the practice followed by the Railway Company in June, 1912. At that time the Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Company was maintaining a tri-weekly north bound freight service according to schedule; that is, a freight train going north through McCall was due on Saturday morning, Tuesday morning and Thursday morning each week. On, the morning of Saturday, June 8th, 1912, the regular freight train came through according to schedule and the conductor asked me if my car of melons was ready to move and I told him it was not loaded, and he thereupon proceeded with his train. At that time the defendant railway company was operating a passenger train each way daily. The southbound passenger train was due to pass through to Boca Grande, the southern terminus of the company, in the morning, and the northbound passenger train was due to pass through McCall going to Mulberry, in Polk County, the northern terminus of the company, in the afternoon. At times these passenger trains have hauled perishable freight for me. The southbound passenger train did not come through McCall on June 8th, 1912, and about four o’clock in the afternoon a locomotive with a freight box car attached to it came through going north. This train was running about on the schedule of the regular northbound passenger train due on that date, and which passenger train did not run. This train stopped at McCall ’and I found Mr. N. PI. Goucher, superintendent of transportation of the defendant railway company, and Mr. L. Barwick, chief clerk to [578] the general manager of the defendant railway company, in charge of it. Mr. Goucher asked me if I had anything to go north, stating he could carry it to Arcadia, which is an intermediate point on the line of the Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Company, and that there had been a washout beyond Arcadia which prevented operation of trains any further north than Arcadia and had stopped the southbound passenger train that morning, for which reason he was running this emergency train on the northbound passenger train schedule to take care of any emergency local business between Boca Grande and Arcadia. I gave him the mail from the postoffice, as I was postmaster, and also some small packages of freight, and I told him I had a car of watermelons to move. I had the bill of lading made out and in my pocket. He asked me where it was and I pointed to it on the siding and he said he did not have time to take it then but would get it on Monday. T was willing to pay the freight on the car but it was not demanded of me. No bill of lading was made out or delivered tonne. After that train left there was no other train passing McCall on the line of the defendant company except construction trains for several weeks, with the exception of two passenger trains; one each way, which ran the next day, Sunday 9th. Sunday night, June 9th, the big bridge across Peace River between McCall and Arcadia, was washed out, and traffic in the usual course of business was suspended on the Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway for about three weeks. There is no point between the southern terminus of the Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Company at Boca Grande and the point where the bridge over Peace River washed out at which the Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Company has a physical connection with any other railroad [579] line. During the time while traffic’ was suspended, as before stated, the watermelons in the car rotted and when traffic was resumed employees of the defendant railway company threw the melons out of the car.”

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

Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Co. v. Buchan, 71 So. 842, 71 Fla. 575 (Fla. 1916).

71 So. 842 (Charlotte Harbor & Northern Railway Co. v. Buchan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DeSoto Holding Co. v. Boyer
97 So. 205 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
Live Oak, Perry & Gulf Railroad v. Holmes
96 So. 400 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1923)
McClellan v. Wood
83 So. 295 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1919)