Elm City Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Elm City Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

88 S.E. 139, 171 N.C. 182, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 43

DecidedMarch 15, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 88 S.E. 139 (Elm City Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elm City Lumber Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 88 S.E. 139, 171 N.C. 182, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 43 (N.C. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Bbowm, J.

The plaintiffs shipped two car-loads of hay by defendant, one to MacLean & Groom,. Bennettsville, S. 0., and the other to R. L. Smith & Co., Robersonville, N. C., under bills of lading containing this clause: “Inspection of property covered by the bill of lading will not be permitted unless provided by law or unless permission is indorsed on the original bill of lading or given in writing by the shipper.”

The plaintiff sues to recover damages for a breach of this stipulation by defendant.

1. As to the shipment to Bennettsville. The court might well have instructed the jury upon plaintiff's evidence to answer the issues as they did, as no evidence was offered by defendant. The plaintiff introduced J. A. MacLean, of the firm of MacLean & Groom, who testified that he inspected the hay, and that it was not timothy hay, the kind contracted for, but orchard grass; that he inspected it by authority of plaintiff, who sent witness a circular-letter dated 9 February, making a price on hay with leave for inspection. This letter is in evidence and contains the words: “We guarantee our grade and weight, and bill all cars inspection permitted.”

2. As to the Robersonville shipment. A. S. Robinson testified for plaintiff that the shipment of hay to R. L. Smith was for their joint account; that the contract called for No. 1 timothy hay; that he inspected this hay without authority of the defendant, but at Smith’s request; that it was not timothy hay, but prairie grass. There is no evidence whatever that defendant’s agent authorized Robinson to enter *184 tbe car and make inspection, or that defendant wa? guilty of any negligence in failing to prevent it.

The general circular-letter in evidence and issued by plaintiff to all its customers might well permit inspection at Robersonville, as well as at Bennettsville; but it is not necessary to re.st the case on that ground.

No error.

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

Bbowm, J.

The plaintiffs shipped two car-loads of hay by defendant, one to MacLean & Groom,. Bennettsville, S. 0., and the other to R. L. Smith & Co., Robersonville, N. C., under bills of lading containing this clause: “Inspection of property covered by the bill of lading will not be permitted unless provided by law or unless permission is indorsed on the original bill of lading or given in writing by the shipper.”

The plaintiff sues to recover damages for a breach of this stipulation by defendant.

1. As to the shipment to Bennettsville. The court might well have instructed the jury upon plaintiff's evidence to answer the issues as they did, as no evidence was offered by defendant. The plaintiff introduced J. A. MacLean, of the firm of MacLean & Groom, who testified that he inspected the hay, and that it was not timothy hay, the kind contracted for, but orchard grass; that he inspected it by authority of plaintiff, who sent witness a circular-letter dated 9 February, making a price on hay with leave for inspection. This letter is in evidence and contains the words: “We guarantee our grade and weight, and bill all cars inspection permitted.”

2. As to the Robersonville shipment. A. S. Robinson testified for plaintiff that the shipment of hay to R. L. Smith was for their joint account; that the contract called for No. 1 timothy hay; that he inspected this hay without authority of the defendant, but at Smith’s request; that it was not timothy hay, but prairie grass. There is no evidence whatever that defendant’s agent authorized Robinson to enter *184 tbe car and make inspection, or that defendant wa? guilty of any negligence in failing to prevent it.

The general circular-letter in evidence and issued by plaintiff to all its customers might well permit inspection at Robersonville, as well as at Bennettsville; but it is not necessary to re.st the case on that ground.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 S.E. 139, 171 N.C. 182, 1916 N.C. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elm-city-lumber-co-v-atlantic-coast-line-railroad-nc-1916.