Ware v. Duggan

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ware v. Duggan

110 S.E. 751, 28 Ga. App. 234, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 418

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 16, 1922

Docket12949

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 S.E. 751 (Ware v. Duggan) 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

Ware v. Duggan, 110 S.E. 751, 28 Ga. App. 234, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 418 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This was a suit against a warehouseman to recover for damage to cotton delivered to him for storage. Upon the trial, after the introduction of testimony for the plaintiff, the court, on motion of the defendant, awarded a nonsuit. The evidence showed that the cotton had been delivered by agents of the plaintiff to the defendant for storage purposes, and that it had been damaged while in his custody as a warehouseman. The burden was then put upon the defendant to show that he had exercised ordinary diligence in storing and protecting the cotton. The evidence for the plaintiff (the defendant having introduced none) does not demand a finding that the defendant carried this burden. The court, therefore, erred in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Dulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This was a suit against a warehouseman to recover for damage to cotton delivered to him for storage. Upon the trial, after the introduction of testimony for the plaintiff, the court, on motion of the defendant, awarded a nonsuit. The evidence showed that the cotton had been delivered by agents of the plaintiff to the defendant for storage purposes, and that it had been damaged while in his custody as a warehouseman. The burden was then put upon the defendant to show that he had exercised ordinary diligence in storing and protecting the cotton. The evidence for the plaintiff (the defendant having introduced none) does not demand a finding that the defendant carried this burden. The court, therefore, erred in awarding a nonsuit.

Judgment reversed.

Dulce and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 S.E. 751, 28 Ga. App. 234, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ware-v-duggan-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack