Southern Railway Co. v. Maddox

67 S.E. 838, 7 Ga. App. 650, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 444
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 19, 1910·No. 2240·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

1. Where the consignor makes the contract of shipment with the carrier, he may bring an action for failure to deliver the goods to the consignee, although the title to the property may be in the consignee. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Meinhard, 133 Ga. 684 (66 S. E. 897). The contract of carriage having been made with the consignor, he would have the right to sue for its breach. The recovery would inure to the benefit of the real owner. Southern Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 2 Ga. App. 36 (58 S. E. 333) ; Carter v. Southern Ry. Co., 111 Ga. 38 (36 S. E. 308, 50 L. R. A. 354), and cases cited.

2. The suit in this case was plainly ex contractu, and not ex delicto, and the justice’s court had jurisdiction.

3. The evidence supports the verdict, and the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari. Judgment affirmed.

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

Southern Railway Co. v. Maddox, 67 S.E. 838, 7 Ga. App. 650, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

67 S.E. 838 (Southern Railway Co. v. Maddox) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Black v. Southern Railway Co.
173 S.E. 199 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)
Cherokee Graphite & Chemical Co. v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.
86 S.E. 258 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1915)
Fine & Brother v. Southern Express Co.
73 S.E. 35 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911)