Payne v. Duncan & Nelms

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Payne v. Duncan & Nelms

111 S.E. 209, 28 Ga. App. 399, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 544

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 20, 1922

Docket12758

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 S.E. 209 (Payne v. Duncan & Nelms) 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

Payne v. Duncan & Nelms, 111 S.E. 209, 28 Ga. App. 399, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

There was undisputed testimony which showed that one of the plaintiff firm at the time of the injury to the mules in question had actual knowledge of the alleged safer facilities for unloading, but made no protest to the carrier or its agent, and sent to the carrier’s depot the plaintiff’s own agent, who paid the freight, took charge of the animals and haltered some, accepted the carrier’s existing place and facilities for unloading without offering any objection, and himself (whatever under the disputed evidence the carrier’s agent might have done in directing or suggesting the manner of unloading) acquiesced in the agent’s suggestions, and actively assisted in, if he did not wholly direct, all of the processes of unloading.

It is not necessary to add anything further to the headnotes.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Hill, J.J., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

There was undisputed testimony which showed that one of the plaintiff firm at the time of the injury to the mules in question had actual knowledge of the alleged safer facilities for unloading, but made no protest to the carrier or its agent, and sent to the carrier’s depot the plaintiff’s own agent, who paid the freight, took charge of the animals and haltered some, accepted the carrier’s existing place and facilities for unloading without offering any objection, and himself (whatever under the disputed evidence the carrier’s agent might have done in directing or suggesting the manner of unloading) acquiesced in the agent’s suggestions, and actively assisted in, if he did not wholly direct, all of the processes of unloading.

It is not necessary to add anything further to the headnotes.

Judgment reversed.

Stephens and Hill, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E. 209, 28 Ga. App. 399, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-duncan-nelms-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack