Moor v. Southern Pacific Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moor v. Southern Pacific Co.

132 S.E. 920, 35 Ga. App. 288, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 699

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 20, 1926

Docket16763

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 132 S.E. 920 (Moor v. Southern Pacific 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

Moor v. Southern Pacific Co., 132 S.E. 920, 35 Ga. App. 288, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 699 (Ga. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

“If the consignee rejects the goods, the carrier’s liability as such ceases, and he becomes liable as warehouseman. As such warehouseman he is chargeable with the duty of notifying the consignor of the consignee’s refusal to accept the goods, and with the further duty of holding the same subject to the order of the consignor.” Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. McKenzie, 139 Ga. 410, 411 (77 S. E. 647, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 18). If, while in the carrier’s custody as warehouseman, they are seized or condemned under process of law, the carrier is relieved from liability to the consignor for failure to carry out its agreement, provided it can show that it promptly notified the shipper of such interference and seizure under legal process, or that the shipper had actual notice thereof. In the absence of such notice or such knowledge, the mere seizure under valid process is not, however, sufficient to relieve the carrier from liability on account of delivering the goods to a person other than the consignee.

In this case the reference made in a copy letter to the contents of a previous letter had no probative value as going to show actual knowledge by the shipper of the seizure and condemnation of the goods.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Anderson & Roberts, for plaintiff in error. J. Glenn Giles, contra.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

“If the consignee rejects the goods, the carrier’s liability as such ceases, and he becomes liable as warehouseman. As such warehouseman he is chargeable with the duty of notifying the consignor of the consignee’s refusal to accept the goods, and with the further duty of holding the same subject to the order of the consignor.” Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. McKenzie, 139 Ga. 410, 411 (77 S. E. 647, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 18). If, while in the carrier’s custody as warehouseman, they are seized or condemned under process of law, the carrier is relieved from liability to the consignor for failure to carry out its agreement, provided it can show that it promptly notified the shipper of such interference and seizure under legal process, or that the shipper had actual notice thereof. In the absence of such notice or such knowledge, the mere seizure under valid process is not, however, sufficient to relieve the carrier from liability on account of delivering the goods to a person other than the consignee.

In this case the reference made in a copy letter to the contents of a previous letter had no probative value as going to show actual knowledge by the shipper of the seizure and condemnation of the goods.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Anderson & Roberts, for plaintiff in error. J. Glenn Giles, contra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 S.E. 920, 35 Ga. App. 288, 1926 Ga. App. LEXIS 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moor-v-southern-pacific-co-gactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack