Davis v. Pearlman

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davis v. Pearlman

113 S.E. 44, 29 Ga. App. 12, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 12

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 24, 1922

Docket12818

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 S.E. 44 (Davis v. Pearlman) 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

Davis v. Pearlman, 113 S.E. 44, 29 Ga. App. 12, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Where a bill of lading in an interstate shipment stipulates that' the carrier shall be liable only as a warehouseman for goods not removed within a specified time after arrival at destination, and where the goods are admittedly destroyed by fire after the expiration of the time specified, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. Central of Georgia Ry. v. Owens, 28 Ga. App. 140 (110 S. E. 339), and cases there cited.

2. Where in 'an interstate shipment the bill of lading provided that “ property not removed by the party entitled to receive it within 48 hours (exclusive of legal holidays) after notice of its arrival has been duly sent or given may be kept . . subject . . to carrier’s responsibility as warehouseman only,” it was error, in a suit by the consignee against the carrier to recover the value of goods ■ destroyed by fire while in the custody of the railroad after the expiration of the time specified, for the court to charge that the carrier’s status as a carrier would not change to that of a warehouseman until after the lapse of a “ reasonable time ” after such notice was given or received. See in this connection Michigan &c. Ry. v. Owen, 256 U. S. 427 (41 Sup. Ct. 554). Judgment reversed.

Jenhins, P. J., concurs.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Where a bill of lading in an interstate shipment stipulates that' the carrier shall be liable only as a warehouseman for goods not removed within a specified time after arrival at destination, and where the goods are admittedly destroyed by fire after the expiration of the time specified, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was negligent. Central of Georgia Ry. v. Owens, 28 Ga. App. 140 (110 S. E. 339), and cases there cited.

2. Where in 'an interstate shipment the bill of lading provided that “ property not removed by the party entitled to receive it within 48 hours (exclusive of legal holidays) after notice of its arrival has been duly sent or given may be kept . . subject . . to carrier’s responsibility as warehouseman only,” it was error, in a suit by the consignee against the carrier to recover the value of goods ■ destroyed by fire while in the custody of the railroad after the expiration of the time specified, for the court to charge that the carrier’s status as a carrier would not change to that of a warehouseman until after the lapse of a “ reasonable time ” after such notice was given or received. See in this connection Michigan &c. Ry. v. Owen, 256 U. S. 427 (41 Sup. Ct. 554). Judgment reversed.

Jenhins, P. J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 S.E. 44, 29 Ga. App. 12, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-pearlman-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack