Currie v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.

Decision Date01 November 1911
Citation72 S.E. 493,156 N.C. 432
PartiesCURRIE v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Bladen County; O. H. Allen, Judge.

Action by N. A. Currie against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Where in an action for the value of a puncheon of molasses which burst while in the custody of a carrier, there is evidence that the cause was the fermentation of the molasses defendant is entitled to have it considered by the jury under a proper charge, as the carrier is not liable for loss or damage resulting from defects inherent in the goods.

The jury rendered the following verdict:

"(1) In what sum, if any, is defendant indebted to the plaintiff by reason of the loss of a puncheon of molasses? A. $47.20.
"(2) In what sum, if any, is defendant indebted to plaintiff by way of penalty? A. $50."

W. H. Neal, for appellant.

HOKE J.

The court has held that section 2034, Revisal 1905, imposing a penalty on common carriers for failure to settle claims for loss or damage to property while in their possession as such within 60 days after filing same, in case of shipments wholly within the state and 90 days when the shipments were without the state by correct interpretation, requires that, in order to a recovery of the penalty, the claim should be filed with the company within the time specified. Thompson v Express Company, 147 N.C. 343, 61 S.E. 182. The testimony tended to show that the molasses was lost by reason of the bursting of the puncheon, and defendant objected to the recovery, first, that there had been no proper filing of the claim. The written statement of plaintiff's demand within the time was left with the proper officials of defendant company, in terms as follows: "Clarkton, N.C. Sept. 3, 1909. Sea Board Air Line. Bought of N. A. Currie, Merchant and Cotton buyer, 1 Puncheon of molasses 118 Gals. at 40 cents a Gal. $47.20. Shipped from Wilmington." And plaintiff was allowed to testify, over defendant's objection, that he told the agent on presenting the claim that it was for the puncheon of molasses that burst. While the form of the demand is not one to be approved or generally followed, we think it sufficiently definite to notify defendant of the amount and nature of the claim, affording, as it did, sufficient information to enable the company to make investigation...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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