Anniston Transfer Co. v. Gurley
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | HEAD, J. |
| Citation | 18 So. 209,107 Ala. 600 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1895 |
| Parties | ANNISTON TRANSFER CO. v. GURLEY. |
18 So. 209
107 Ala. 600
ANNISTON TRANSFER CO.
v.
GURLEY.
Supreme Court of Alabama
June 20, 1895
Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.
Action by S. M. Gurley against the Anniston Transfer Company to recover for loss of a trunk. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
The evidence was practically without conflict, and showed that the defendant was engaged, as a transfer company, in the business of hauling baggage to and from the depot and other places in the city of Anniston; that R. H. Robinson, a son-in-law, and as agent, of the plaintiff, engaged the defendant to haul the plaintiff's trunk from Robinson's house to the Georgia Pacific Railroad depot in Anniston; and that the trunk was delivered to the driver of one of defendant's baggage wagons, and was carried by the driver to the Georgia Pacific depot. The cause was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury, and, upon the hearing of all the evidence, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff.
Knox, Bowie & Pelham, for appellant.
Methvin & Kelly, for appellee.
HEAD, J.
We are satisfied, from the testimony, which is practically without dispute on this point, that the contract between the parties was that the defendant company should carry the plaintiff's trunk to the depot, and deliver it there to the baggage agent of the railroad company. The plaintiff herself testified that the trunk was delivered to the defendant's driver, "to be deposited in the baggage room of the Ga. Pacific R. R."; and her son-in-law, Robinson, who acted for her, says he informed the defendant's general manager that he wanted the trunk carried to the Georgia Pacific depot, and, furthermore, that, when he accompanied the plaintiff to the train, the next morning, he inquired for the trunk of the baggage agent of the Georgia Pacific Railroad, at the depot in Anniston where he had ordered the trunk to be taken. We have only to decide whether the defendant performed that contract; and we are clearly of the opinion that it did perform it fully, both in its letter and spirit. The testimony shows, without conflict, that the driver, Joe Lindsay, immediately upon receiving the trunk, carried it to the depot, and put it on the covered platform between the passenger and baggage departments, in front of the door of the baggage room, at the place, and only place, set apart and especially designated by the baggage agent for the deposit of baggage to be received by him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. Lowenstein
...to the lands, and admitted possession by the defendant. Section 3236, Rev. Gen. Stats.; Petty v. Mays, 19 Fla. 652; Buesing v. Forbes, 18 So. 209, 33 Fla. 495; Walters v. Sheffield, 78 So. 539, 75 Fla. 505, text 513. A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court. By stipulation 'i......
-
Williams v. Southern Ry. Co
...360, 89 S. W. 1109; Wright v. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51; Merriam v. Hartford & R. R., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344; Transfer Co. v. Gurley, 107 Ala. 600, 18 South. 209, 34 L. R. A. 137. This rule is at times modified where a custom of the company is established to consider and treat baggage as ......
-
Sampson v. State
...of the grand jury, except that the jurors were not drawn in the presence of the officers designated by law. See, also, section 4446. [18 So. 209.] See cases cited in note to section 4445; also Cochran v. State, 89 Ala. 40, 8 So. 78; Roe v. State, 82 Ala. 68, 3 So. 2; Harrington v. State, 83......
-
Phillips v. Lowenstein
...to the lands, and admitted possession by the defendant. Section 3236, Rev. Gen. Stats.; Petty v. Mays, 19 Fla. 652; Buesing v. Forbes, 18 So. 209, 33 Fla. 495; Walters v. Sheffield, 78 So. 539, 75 Fla. 505, text 513. A jury was waived, and the cause was tried by the court. By stipulation 'i......
-
Williams v. Southern Ry. Co
...360, 89 S. W. 1109; Wright v. Caldwell, 3 Mich. 51; Merriam v. Hartford & R. R., 20 Conn. 354, 52 Am. Dec. 344; Transfer Co. v. Gurley, 107 Ala. 600, 18 South. 209, 34 L. R. A. 137. This rule is at times modified where a custom of the company is established to consider and treat baggage as ......
-
Sampson v. State
...of the grand jury, except that the jurors were not drawn in the presence of the officers designated by law. See, also, section 4446. [18 So. 209.] See cases cited in note to section 4445; also Cochran v. State, 89 Ala. 40, 8 So. 78; Roe v. State, 82 Ala. 68, 3 So. 2; Harrington v. State, 83......