City of Bainbridge v. Smith

79 S.E. 1130, 13 Ga. App. 790, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 364
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided November 25, 1913·No. 5070·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Russell, O. J.

1. The execution of a bill of lading is not an indispensable prerequisite to a valid contract of affreightment, nor necessary to evidence such a delivery to a common carrier as will be the equivalent in the contemplation of law to delivery to the consignee. Especially is this true when delivery is made by a shipper at a point upon the line of a carrier where there is no agency or shipping agent of the carrier.

2. There is evidence which authorized the inference that the defendant had constituted the carrier its agent to receive and deliver the wood which was in controversy, and evidence which authorized the conclusion that the plaintiff corrected all errors in the delivery of the wood which had been brought to his attention by the defendant. Consequently the evidence authorized the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed. Judgment affirmed.

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

City of Bainbridge v. Smith, 79 S.E. 1130, 13 Ga. App. 790, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 364 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

79 S.E. 1130 (City of Bainbridge v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Baer & Son v. Hooks
149 S.E. 719 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1929)
Taylor v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
121 S.E. 348 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)