Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt

102 S.E. 757, 25 Ga. App. 116, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 631

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 7, 1920

Docket10884

StatusPublished

This text of 102 S.E. 757 (Southern Railway Co. v. Hunt) 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 Railway Co. v. Hunt, 102 S.E. 757, 25 Ga. App. 116, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 631 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

While the transferee of an “order notify” hill of lading, after paying the draft attached and obtaining possession of the bill of lading and thus acquiring the legal title to the goods mentioned therein, may maintain a suit against the carrier for any shortage in the shipment, occasioned subsequently to the transfer of title and before delivery to him, where such shortage is traced to the carrier, yet where in such a suit the bill of lading does not appear in evidence, and there is no evidence of any admission upon the part of the carrier as to the amount of goods received by it from the consignor, or other evidence tending to prove the amount of goods in the possession of the carrier and delivered to the transferee, the latter, although proving title to the goods shipped and received, fails to prove any loss or damage to the shipment accruing after he had obtained title thereto.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

While the transferee of an “order notify” hill of lading, after paying the draft attached and obtaining possession of the bill of lading and thus acquiring the legal title to the goods mentioned therein, may maintain a suit against the carrier for any shortage in the shipment, occasioned subsequently to the transfer of title and before delivery to him, where such shortage is traced to the carrier, yet where in such a suit the bill of lading does not appear in evidence, and there is no evidence of any admission upon the part of the carrier as to the amount of goods received by it from the consignor, or other evidence tending to prove the amount of goods in the possession of the carrier and delivered to the transferee, the latter, although proving title to the goods shipped and received, fails to prove any loss or damage to the shipment accruing after he had obtained title thereto.

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 S.E. 757, 25 Ga. App. 116, 1920 Ga. App. LEXIS 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-hunt-gactapp-1920.