Wilensky v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wilensky v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.

72 S.E. 516, 10 Ga. App. 8, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 605

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 7, 1911

Docket2101

StatusPublished

This text of 72 S.E. 516 (Wilensky v. Central of Georgia Railway Co.) 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

Wilensky v. Central of Georgia Railway Co., 72 S.E. 516, 10 Ga. App. 8, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 605 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

The Supreme Court (136 Oa. 889, 72 S. E. 418), in answer to the questions certified to it by this court, having held that a shipper who is both consignor and consignee can not maintain an action ex contractu against a carrier for the value of goods consigned to [9]*9it for shipment and not delivered, and which the carrier tendered at destination in a damaged condition, but refused to deliver without payment of the usual freight charges, notwithstanding the damage to the goods amounted to more than the freight charges, and the shipper demanded that the damages be offset against the freight bill, it follows that the trial judge did not err in sustaining the certiorari.

Decided November 7, 1911.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis.

July 7, 1909. Jesse M. Wood, for plaintiff. Payne, Little & Jones, M. F. Goldstein, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

The Supreme Court (136 Oa. 889, 72 S. E. 418), in answer to the questions certified to it by this court, having held that a shipper who is both consignor and consignee can not maintain an action ex contractu against a carrier for the value of goods consigned to [9]*9it for shipment and not delivered, and which the carrier tendered at destination in a damaged condition, but refused to deliver without payment of the usual freight charges, notwithstanding the damage to the goods amounted to more than the freight charges, and the shipper demanded that the damages be offset against the freight bill, it follows that the trial judge did not err in sustaining the certiorari.

Decided November 7, 1911.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court — Judge Ellis.

July 7, 1909. Jesse M. Wood, for plaintiff. Payne, Little & Jones, M. F. Goldstein, for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 S.E. 516, 10 Ga. App. 8, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilensky-v-central-of-georgia-railway-co-gactapp-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack