City of Bainbridge v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Georgia

City of Bainbridge v. Smith

79 S.E. 1130, 13 Ga. App. 790, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 364

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 25, 1913

Docket5070

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 S.E. 1130 (City of Bainbridge v. Smith) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 S.E. 1130, 13 Ga. App. 790, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-bainbridge-v-smith-gactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack