Southern Express Co. v. Bailey

66 S.E. 960, 7 Ga. App. 331, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 273
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided January 21, 1910·No. 2275·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Powell, J.

1. In an action against a common carrier for a failure-safely to transport and deliver goods committed to it by a shipper, specific allegations of negligence may be treated as surplusage. The action does not depend upon negligence. ' Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Warfield, 129 Ga. 473 (59 S. E. 234).

2. While a common carrier may defend against an action for loss or damage to goods, by showing that the loss or damage accrued through -an inherent vice or natural deterioration of the object carried, the burden of establishing this defense is upon the .carrier.

3. This court is unable to say that the verdict is without evidence to support it. . Judgment affirmed.

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

Southern Express Co. v. Bailey, 66 S.E. 960, 7 Ga. App. 331, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 273 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

66 S.E. 960 (Southern Express Co. v. Bailey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Empire Aluminum Corporation v. SS KORENDIJK
391 F. Supp. 402 (S.D. Georgia, 1973)
Loo-Mac Freight Lines, Inc. v. American Type Founders, Inc.
110 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Georgia-Alabama Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. White
191 S.E. 265 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Southern Railway Co. v. Standard Growers Exchange
130 S.E. 373 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1925)
Heath v. Sandersville Railroad
98 S.E. 92 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1919)
Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Stamps
87 S.E. 702 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1916)