Georgia Railroad v. Richards

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Railroad v. Richards

72 S.E. 48, 9 Ga. App. 639, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 268

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 11, 1911

Docket2846

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.E. 48 (Georgia Railroad v. Richards) 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

Georgia Railroad v. Richards, 72 S.E. 48, 9 Ga. App. 639, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 268 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Though a carrier is not required to deliver the goods until its lawful charges have been paid or tendered, still if it refuses to deliver the goods unless the plaintiff will pay an unlawful and extortionate charge, under such circumstances as to make it clear that a tender of the lawful charges would be refused, the shipper is excused from producing the actual money and offering it before treating the carrier’s refusal to deliver as a breach of its contract of carriage or a conversion of the goods.

2. The defendant having denied that the goods were worth the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and the evidence on this point being in conflict, the court erred in instructing the jury that in the event they found for the plaintiff, they should find for the full amount claimed.

3. Apart from the error dealt with in the second paragraph above, no other reason for reversing the judgment appears.

Judgment reversed.

Appeal; from Bichmond superior court — Judge Hammond. July 2,1910.

J oseph B. & Bryan Gumming, J ames M. Hull Jr., for plaintiff in error. Pierce Brothers, contra.

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

Russell, J.

1. Though a carrier is not required to deliver the goods until its lawful charges have been paid or tendered, still if it refuses to deliver the goods unless the plaintiff will pay an unlawful and extortionate charge, under such circumstances as to make it clear that a tender of the lawful charges would be refused, the shipper is excused from producing the actual money and offering it before treating the carrier’s refusal to deliver as a breach of its contract of carriage or a conversion of the goods.

2. The defendant having denied that the goods were worth the amount claimed by the plaintiff, and the evidence on this point being in conflict, the court erred in instructing the jury that in the event they found for the plaintiff, they should find for the full amount claimed.

3. Apart from the error dealt with in the second paragraph above, no other reason for reversing the judgment appears.

Judgment reversed.

Appeal; from Bichmond superior court — Judge Hammond. July 2,1910.

J oseph B. & Bryan Gumming, J ames M. Hull Jr., for plaintiff in error. Pierce Brothers, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 48, 9 Ga. App. 639, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-railroad-v-richards-gactapp-1911.