Nall v. Farmers Warehouse Co.

22 S.E. 665, 95 Ga. 770
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided April 15, 1895·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Atkinson, Justice.

It is only necessary to add, by way of explanation, to the head-notes and the official report in this case, that it will appear from the latter that in the execution of the contract of rental the defendants personally sued in this case, contracted not only as a committee from the county alliance of Spalding county, but each for and on his own account and for and on account of the order he and they represented. It will be observed that the contract of rental, as executed, was executed by the parties in this case, not only in their representative, but in their personal capacity. The undisputed evidence is, that the parties of the first part to this contract of rental carried on a warehouse business upon the rented premises. During the time they so conducted this business the [773]*773plaintiff committed to their keeping the propei’ty for and on account of which, this suit is brought. The court granted a nonsuit, and we think this was error. The bailment had been established, a refusal of delivery upon demand likewise shown, and the damage proven. This makes the plaintiff’s case, and, uucontradicted, be was entitled to recover.

Let the judgment of the court below be Reversed.

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

Nall v. Farmers Warehouse Co., 22 S.E. 665, 95 Ga. 770 (Ga. 1895).

22 S.E. 665 (Nall v. Farmers Warehouse Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Phinizy v. Bush
59 S.E. 259 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1907)
Livingston v. Anderson & Son
58 S.E. 505 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1907)
Partridge v. Hollinshead
30 S.E. 787 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)