Coles v. Cent. R.R. & Banking Co

• Decision Date: 26 November 1890
• Citation: 86 Ga. 251,12 S.E. 749
• Parties: Coles et al. v. Central Railroad & Banking Co.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

12 S.E. 749

86 Ga. 251

Coles et al.

v.Central Railroad & Banking Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 26, 1890.

Carriers — Connecting Lines — Through Bills of Lading.

1. Act Ga. Sept. 28, 1883, (Acts 1882-S3, p. 145,) which prescribes a penalty for the refusal of a railroad to receive and transport to any point on its own line cars containing freight offered to it by a connecting road of the same gauge, does not require a railroad to issue through bills of lading to points on a connecting line, and to deliver its own cars containing freight to such connecting line.

2. The fact that it has issued such through bills of lading to shippers at a certain point gives no right to shippers at another point to demand that they be likewise issued to them.

Error from superior court, Chatham county; Falligant, Judge.

Act Ga. Sept. 28, 1883, (Acts 1882-83, p. 145,) provides that "all railroad companies in this state shall, at the terminus or any intermediate point, be required to receive from the connecting road having the same gauge, when offered, all cars containing goods or freight consigned to any point on the road to which the same is offered, and to transport the said cars to their destination with reasonable diligence; and any failure or refusal of any connecting railroad company to comply with this requirement shall give the consignee, shipper, or owner of said goods and freight a right of action against the company so refusing, and the damages received in such action shall not be less than 10% nor more than 25% of the value of the goods so refused to be received."

Garrard & Meldrim, Goodyear & Kay, and D. H. Pope, for plaintiffs in error.

Lawton & Cunningham, for defendant in error.

Simmons, J. The plaintiffs in error brought their action against the railroad company for damages, and alleged, in substance, that during the cotton season they purchased at several places on the defendant's line cotton for shipment to Brunswick, via the Central Railroad to Albany, and thence via the Brunswick & Western Railroad to Brunswick, the Brunswick & Western being of the same width of track or gauge, and connecting with the Central at Albany; that the defendant refused to issue through bills of lading in full carload lots for this cotton, and the plaintiffs took local bills of lading to Albany, and were compelled to dray the cotton from the Central Railroad warehouse at Albany to the Brunswick & Western warehouse; that plaintiffs had offered to pay the commission rates from Americus to Albany, etc., and from Albany to Brunswick, if the agents would give through bills of lading on full car-load lots, which the defendant refused; that after the cotton was received by the Central Railroad, and bills of lading to Albany had been issued for it, plain-tin's notified the Central Railroad agent at Albany that he must deliver it in the yard of the Brunswick & Western in all car-load lots. Other allegations are made in the declaration as to the negligence of the defendant in willfully detaining the cotton at Albany, and as to shipping cotton from Macon, a competing point with the East Tennessee Railroad, to Brunswick. They claimed a large amount as damages, including the...