Southern Express Co. v. Oliver

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Express Co. v. Oliver

93 S.E. 109, 20 Ga. App. 467, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 933

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 5, 1917

Docket7746

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 S.E. 109 (Southern Express Co. v. Oliver) 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

Southern Express Co. v. Oliver, 93 S.E. 109, 20 Ga. App. 467, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 933 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. Where an action against an express company was based on an interstate shipment, the validity of the stipulation embraced in the receipt issued by the company, limiting to a period of one year the time within which action might be brought for loss, damage, or detention of th.e shipment, must be determined under the rulings made by the Federal courts. Under such rulings, the consignor is bound by such reasonable stipulations. Lynch v. Southern Express Co., 18 Ga. App. 761 (90 S. E. 655); Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257). See also Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Yesbik, 146 Ga. 769 (92 S. E. 527), in which the case of Adams Express Co. v. Mellichamp, 138 Ga. 442 (75 S. E. 596, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 976), is referred to.

2. In order to prevent the provisions of such a contractual limitation' from attaching, where such a suit is not brought within the period designated by the agreement, such actual fraud on the part of the company must be shown as would relieve the shipper from a compliance with spch requirement; and the mere fact that the company neither paid nor declined payment of the claim, when properly made, within such period of limitation, would not of itself suffice to do so. Cherokee Sawmill Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 19 Ga. App. 475 (91 S. E. 790).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

1. Where an action against an express company was based on an interstate shipment, the validity of the stipulation embraced in the receipt issued by the company, limiting to a period of one year the time within which action might be brought for loss, damage, or detention of th.e shipment, must be determined under the rulings made by the Federal courts. Under such rulings, the consignor is bound by such reasonable stipulations. Lynch v. Southern Express Co., 18 Ga. App. 761 (90 S. E. 655); Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (33 Sup. Ct. 148, 57 L. ed. 314, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 257). See also Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. Yesbik, 146 Ga. 769 (92 S. E. 527), in which the case of Adams Express Co. v. Mellichamp, 138 Ga. 442 (75 S. E. 596, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 976), is referred to.

2. In order to prevent the provisions of such a contractual limitation' from attaching, where such a suit is not brought within the period designated by the agreement, such actual fraud on the part of the company must be shown as would relieve the shipper from a compliance with spch requirement; and the mere fact that the company neither paid nor declined payment of the claim, when properly made, within such period of limitation, would not of itself suffice to do so. Cherokee Sawmill Co. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry., 19 Ga. App. 475 (91 S. E. 790).

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 109, 20 Ga. App. 467, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 933, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-express-co-v-oliver-gactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack