Mills v. Kenyon Printing & Manufacturing Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Mills v. Kenyon Printing & Manufacturing Co.

96 S.E. 346, 22 Ga. App. 537, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 590

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 30, 1918

Docket9135

StatusPublished

This text of 96 S.E. 346 (Mills v. Kenyon Printing & Manufacturing Co.) 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

Mills v. Kenyon Printing & Manufacturing Co., 96 S.E. 346, 22 Ga. App. 537, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 590 (Ga. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. While ordinarily, as between the consignor and the consignee of goods which the consignee has directed the consignor to ship to him, delivery by the consignor to the carrier of the goods is delivery to the consignee, yet where the order and contract for the goods names the carrier to whom they are to be delivered for shipment, delivery to a carrier other than as contracted is not delivery to the consignee. Especially is this true in this case, where the uncontradicted evidence shows that the goods were never received by the consignee.

2. Upon the petition for certiorari and the answer thereto, the judge of the superior court erred in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, 0. J., and JenMns, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. While ordinarily, as between the consignor and the consignee of goods which the consignee has directed the consignor to ship to him, delivery by the consignor to the carrier of the goods is delivery to the consignee, yet where the order and contract for the goods names the carrier to whom they are to be delivered for shipment, delivery to a carrier other than as contracted is not delivery to the consignee. Especially is this true in this case, where the uncontradicted evidence shows that the goods were never received by the consignee.

2. Upon the petition for certiorari and the answer thereto, the judge of the superior court erred in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment reversed.

Wade, 0. J., and JenMns, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 S.E. 346, 22 Ga. App. 537, 1918 Ga. App. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-kenyon-printing-manufacturing-co-gactapp-1918.