Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. DuBose

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. DuBose

71 S.E. 945, 9 Ga. App. 607, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 254

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 4, 1911

Docket3127

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 S.E. 945 (Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. DuBose) 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 Southern & Florida Railway Co. v. DuBose, 71 S.E. 945, 9 Ga. App. 607, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 254 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

The brief filed for the railway company, plaintiff in error, opens with the following sentence: “ There is no error in the charge of the court, or in any ruling of the court upon the trial, A new trial should have'been granted because the verdict was contrary to the undisputed evidence.” The correctness of the state[608]*608ment contained in the first sentence above quoted is fully concurred in, and no error of law is complained of. But a careful consideration of the evidence leads this court to a directly opposite conclusion from that stated in the second sentence above., The plaintiff in error, as the initial carrier, did not successfully carry the burden of proof by showing that the contents of a passenger’s baggage intrusted to its care had not been stolen while the baggage was in its own possession. Besides, the most reasonable deduction from the undisputed evidence was that the contents of the baggage had been stolen by an employee of the initial carrier, and before the baggage had been delivered by the initial carrier to the connecting carrier. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

The brief filed for the railway company, plaintiff in error, opens with the following sentence: “ There is no error in the charge of the court, or in any ruling of the court upon the trial, A new trial should have'been granted because the verdict was contrary to the undisputed evidence.” The correctness of the state[608]*608ment contained in the first sentence above quoted is fully concurred in, and no error of law is complained of. But a careful consideration of the evidence leads this court to a directly opposite conclusion from that stated in the second sentence above., The plaintiff in error, as the initial carrier, did not successfully carry the burden of proof by showing that the contents of a passenger’s baggage intrusted to its care had not been stolen while the baggage was in its own possession. Besides, the most reasonable deduction from the undisputed evidence was that the contents of the baggage had been stolen by an employee of the initial carrier, and before the baggage had been delivered by the initial carrier to the connecting carrier. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 945, 9 Ga. App. 607, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/georgia-southern-florida-railway-co-v-dubose-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack