Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Hanson, 49052

• Decision Date: 14 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 2,No. 49052,49052,2
• Parties: ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., et al. v. Nolan T. HANSON
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 108

206 S.E.2d 108

131 Ga.App. 506

ALLIED VAN LINES, INC., et al. v. Nolan T. HANSON.

No. 49052.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

March 14, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 29, 1974.

J. Matthew Dwyer, Jr., Beryl H. Weiner, Atlanta, for appellants.

Henning, Chambers & Mabry, Peter K. Kintz, Atlanta, for appellee.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

STOLZ, Judge.

Allied Van Lines, Inc., and its agent, J. Woodside Storage Co., Inc. (the real party in interest), brought an action to recover from the defendant shipper-consignee the balance allegedly due on shipping charges for the plaintiff carriers' moving of the defendant's household goods and furniture from Georgia to New York. It was alleged that the move was made pursuant to an agreement with the defendant's employer, Art Metal U.S. Corp., and in accordance with the terms of the bill of lading; and that the shipment was delivered subject to the terms and conditions of plaintiff Allied's tariff on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission (which latter was neither admitted nor denied by the defendant for want of sufficient information).

The plaintiffs' evidence showed substantially as follows: The bill of lading, which constituted the contract for shipment, named the defendant as both shipper and consignee, and contained a notation thereon to bill the defendant's employer ('as a convenience to the defendant'). President Woodside, of the plaintiff agent, testified that he extended credit to the defendant on the basis of the assurance that the defendant's employer would pay the bill. Within 15 days after the defendant consignee accepted the shipment, the plaintiffs billed the defendant's employer, who paid a part of the charges then went bankrupt. At least 4 months after the shipment, the plaintiffs billed the defendant for the balance due on the shipping charges.

At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence, both parties moved for a directed verdict. The plaintiffs appeal from the grant of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Held:

1. "A motion a directed verdict may be made at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent or at the close of the case.' Rule 50(a); CPA § 50(a) (Code Ann. § 81A-150(a)). Under this rule the defendant, but not the plaintiff, may move for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence for the plaintiff.' (Emphasis supplied.) Kay Enterprises, Inc. v. Shawmac, Inc., 124 Ga.App. 225, 183 S.E.2d 503. In the case sub judice, however, unlike the Kay Enterprises case, the defendant did not offer any evidence; hence, the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of their own evidence, was in fact timely made 'at the close of the case.' However, the trial judge did not err in overruling the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict, for the reasons given in our ruling on the grant of the defendant's motion for a directed verdict in Division 2 hereinbelow.

2. 'Our own cases have held that the carrier may collect the charges from the shipper or from the consignee, absent a special contract under which the carrier agrees to relieve one or the other.' Aero Mayflower Transit Co., Inc. v. Harbin, 126 Ga.App. 72, 73, 190 S.E.2d 91, 92 and cits. In Harbin, as in the case sub judice, the shipper and the consignee were the same person, and this court held in effect...