Payton v. Gulf Line Railway Co.

62 S.E. 469, 4 Ga. App. 762, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 534
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 28, 1908
Docket1255
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 62 S.E. 469 (Payton v. Gulf Line Railway 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
Payton v. Gulf Line Railway Co., 62 S.E. 469, 4 Ga. App. 762, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 534 (Ga. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinion

Powell, J.

(After stating the facts.)

1. The petition sets forth a good cause of action as to the actual damages sustained, whether it sounds in contract or in tort. A railroad company which has made a contract of transportation with a proposed passenger, and then, without notice, causes its [763]*763train to leave without coming by the place at which it is accustomed to receive passengers, and without giving the proposed passenger a chance to get aboard, not only breaks its contract with him, but also violates a public duty toward him. Savannah R. Co. v. Bonaud, 58 Ga. 180; Durden v. So. Ry. Co., 2 Ga. App. 66 (58 S. E. 299); Perry v. Central Railroad, 66 Ga. 746 (1). The measure of damages in such cases is fully set forth in Central Railroad v. Combs, 70 Ga. 533 (48 Am. R. 582).

2. If the suit were construed to be an action ex contractu, punitive damages would not be recoverable, and all claim as to them should be stricken from the petition (Ford v. Fargason, 120 Ga. 708, 48 S. E. 180); but the fact that a petition prays for too much does not render it subject to general demurrer. Pierce v. Middle Ga. Land Co., 131 Ga. 99 (61 S. E. 1114); Kupferman v. McGehee, 63 Ga. 250. However, the allegations leaving it uncertain as to whether the suit is brought on the breach of the contract or for the special damages arising from the public wrong, and this formal defect not having been complained of by special demurrer, the petition will be given that construction most favorable to the assertion of a cause of action in plaintiffs favor, and will be held in the present ease to be an action ex delicto. Lytle v. So. Ry. Co., 3 Ga. App. 221 (59 S. E. 595), and cit.; Jenkins v. Seaboard Ry., 3 Ga. App. 381 (59 S. E. 1120); Central R. Co. v. Pickett, 87 Ga. 734 (13 S. E. 750). The court erred in sustaining the demurrer. Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Levy v. Pestop Corp.
145 S.E.2d 95 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Hay v. Butts
97 S.E.2d 720 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Williams v. McKenzie
98 S.E.2d 226 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1957)
Local Trademarks Inc. v. Chupp
61 S.E.2d 842 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
McDermid v. H. & v. Builders Inc.
52 S.E.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)
Simpson v. Bradley
5 S.E.2d 893 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Segars v. City of Cornelia
193 S.E. 794 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Render & Hammett v. Hartford Fire Insurance
127 S.E. 902 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Henry Cotton Mills v. Shoenig & Co.
127 S.E. 238 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Roberts v. Allen
122 S.E. 86 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)
Stoddard v. Campbell
108 S.E. 311 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)
Dawson Cotton Oil Co. v. Kenan, McKay & Speir
94 S.E. 1037 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1918)
Bowers v. Williams
88 S.E. 703 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)
Fine & Brother v. Southern Express Co.
73 S.E. 35 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)
Southern Express Co. v. Pope
63 S.E. 809 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 S.E. 469, 4 Ga. App. 762, 1908 Ga. App. LEXIS 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payton-v-gulf-line-railway-co-gactapp-1908.