92 So. 202 (Ala.App. 1921), 8 Div. 865, Tennessee River Nav. Co. v. Walls

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
Writing for the Court[18 Ala.App. 307] SAMFORD, J.
Citation92 So. 202,18 Ala.App. 305
Docket Number8 Div. 865.
PartiesTENNESSEE RIVER NAV. CO. v. WALLS.

Page 202

92 So. 202 (Ala.App. 1921)

18 Ala.App. 305

TENNESSEE RIVER NAV. CO.

v.

WALLS.

8 Div. 865.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 15, 1921

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Action by Seaborn J. Walls against the Tennessee River Navigation Company, for damages for failure to transport certain cross-ties. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Where there was a question for the jury as to the scope of the agency of a steamboat captain, charges seeking to limit his agency were properly refused as abstract.

Page 203

The following is the complaint:

Count 7. "Plaintiff claims of the defendant $1,500 damages for that *** the defendant[18 Ala.App. 306] was engaged in the transportation of freight on the Tennessee river, between Chattanooga and Decatur, Ala., and intermediate points on said river, and was operating steamboats and barges on said river for transportation of freight as a common carrier, and the plaintiff on or about the time mentioned placed at the customary and usual landing of said steamboats and barges operated by defendant on said river cross-ties or railroad ties, to the number of, to wit, 2,000, and notified defendant through its agents and servants, duly authorized by it in their behalf, that the said cross-ties were so placed at the customary and usual landing, and the defendant, through its agents and servants duly authorized by it in that behalf, thereupon agreed with plaintiff to take up and load upon said steamboat and barges the cross-ties so placed at said landing by plaintiff, and to transport the same to Gunter's Landing on the Tennessee river for an agreed compensation to be paid to defendant by plaintiff, and plaintiff avers that, at the time of making such agreement, defendant knew that plaintiff was making such agreement for transportation for the purpose of selling said ties

Page 204

to the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railroad, at a profit over said cost of ties and transportation, and knew that plaintiff, relying on the transportation of said ties by the defendant, had entered into a contract for the sale of said ties to the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway Company, and that plaintiff had performed a part of said contract. And the plaintiff avers that defendant, with full knowledge of the existence of plaintiff's contract with said railroad company, negligently failed and refused to take up and transport or convey said cross-ties, but negligently permitted them to be washed away by floods to plaintiff's great loss and damage," etc.

Count 8. Same as 7, down to and including the words "at a profit over the cost of said ties and transportation," and concludes as follows: "And that defendant, having notice and full knowledge of plaintiff's purpose and intention to deliver and sell said ties to said railroad company, and to receive said profit in violation of its duty, its contract and agreement to take up and transport said ties, negligently failed and refused to do so, and negligently permitted said ties to be washed away by floods," etc.

Count 9. The same as count 8.

Count 10. This count alleges the facts to show that defendant was a common carrier in the transportation of freight on the Tennessee river between Chattanooga, Tenn., and Decatur, Ala., and the intermediate points on said river, that Gunter's Landing was one of those intermediate points and the regular landing or stopping place for the company's boats; that plaintiff placed 2,000 railroad ties at this point, and notified the defendant's agents, servants, and officers having authority to receive and act upon such notice of the placing of such cross-ties, and of his desire to have them taken up and transported, and thereafter defendant, through its agents and servants, failed and neglected to take up and transport said cross-ties, and they were washed away by floods, by reason of the neglect and failure of the defendant.

Count 11. Alleges the same state of facts, and that the cross-ties were placed at such landing at a proper time and in good shipping condition, of which the defendant had notice by timely and proper notice through its duly authorized agents, and after which notice the defendant failed and refused to take up and transport said cross-ties, whereby the said cross-ties were permitted to and did wash away by floods in said river, and were lost to plaintiff by reason of the negligence and failure of the said defendant to properly take up and transport said ties.

Count 12 was practically the same as count 11.

The following charges were refused to the defendant:

"(2) If Whittaker only agreed to furnish barges, whenever he could get one to transport the plaintiff's ties, and if defendant did this, your verdict should be for the defendant."

"(4) If Capt. Whittaker did not agree absolutely and unconditionally to transport Wall's ties, but if he only agreed to do so whenever he could get a barge, then plaintiff has not proven his case as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • 96 So. 266 (Ala. 1923), 8 Div. 558, Tennessee River Nav. Co. v. Walls
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 26, 1923
    ...after plaintiff's ties were placed on the river, held properly refused as misleading. Page 267 See, also, Tenn. River Nav. Co. v. Walls, 18 Ala. App. 305, 92 So. The following charges were refused to defendant: (1) The court charges the jury that, if the defendant utilized the transportatio......
1 cases
  • 96 So. 266 (Ala. 1923), 8 Div. 558, Tennessee River Nav. Co. v. Walls
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court of Alabama
    • April 26, 1923
    ...after plaintiff's ties were placed on the river, held properly refused as misleading. Page 267 See, also, Tenn. River Nav. Co. v. Walls, 18 Ala. App. 305, 92 So. 202. The following charges were refused to defendant: (1) The court charges the jury that, if the defendant utilized the transpor......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT