Forrester v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co.

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LUMPKIN, J.
• Citation: Forrester v. Georgia R.R. & Banking Co., 19 S.E. 811, 92 Ga. 699 (Ga. 1893)
• Decision Date: 27 November 1893
• Parties: FORRESTER v. GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO.

19 S.E. 811

92 Ga. 699

FORRESTER v. GEORGIA RAILROAD & BANKING CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 27, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A receipt by a railroad company in these words: "Bill of lading for vegetables, fruits, and melons. Issued by the S F. & W., Pelham, Ga., July 1st, 1891. Received of J. R Forester, in apparent good order (inward condition and value of contents unknown), one car, said to contain melons consigned, marked, and described as follows: 'Futch & Co., Augusta, Ga., S. A. M., 3.151 via. Cordele. Articles, melons,"'--is a receipt for a consignment of melons as in good order; and where the car containing the same was delivered to another railroad company, whose line formed one of several connecting railroads between the point of shipment and the point of destination, the presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is that this company also received the melons "as in good order," and unless the presumption is repelled by evidence the carrier is liable accordingly.

2. The evidence showing that a particular freight car, bearing a specific number, and laden with melons, was shipped from Pelham, a point on the line of the S., F. & W. Ry., and consigned to Augusta; that this identical car was afterwards in the possession of the defendant company, at Augusta; and that this company sent to the consignee a bill for the freight,--the fact that the defendant's railroad was one of a line of connecting railroads between Pelham and Augusta was sufficiently established.

3. The presumption being that the melons were delivered to the defendant in good order, the burden of proof was on it to show, either that, when the original company received the melons, they were in a damaged condition, or that they had become so after shipment, without fault on the part of any of the carriers. This is true, although the melons were freight of a perishable nature, and would, by mere lapse of time, become worthless, from natural, inherent causes. Notwithstanding this fact, it was, in view of the plaintiff's evidence, tending to show that the time consumed in transportation was apparently longer than necessary, incumbent upon the defendant to prove that in fact there was no unnecessary or negligent delay by any of the carriers which caused or contributed to the damaged condition of the fruit.

4. The court erred in granting a nonsuit.

Error from city court of Richmond county; W. F. Eve, Judge.

Action by J. R. Forrester against the Georgia Railroad & Banking Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

E. B. Baxter and J. R. Lamar, for plaintiff in error.

J. B. Cumming and Bryan Cumming, for defendant in error.

LUMPKIN J.

1. It is quite probable that the receipt copied in the first headnote was made out upon a printed blank, the use of such blanks being a custom common among railroad companies. It is one, however, which often leads to confusion and embarrassment, because shipments are frequently made, to the terms and conditions of which the words in the printed forms are inappropriate. The language of the receipt in question certainly suggests an instance of this kind; but it is immaterial to the purpose in hand whether this particular receipt was made out on a printed blank, or was expressly prepared with reference to the car of melons delivered by Forrester to the railroad company. In either event, we think a fair construction of its terms leads to the conclusion that it should be regarded as a receipt for a consignment of melons "as in good order." The receipt acknowledges that Forrester had delivered to the company, "in apparent good order (inward condition and value of contents unknown), one car, said to contain melons;" and at the bottom of the receipt we find the words, "Articles melons." Whatever the company did receipt for was "in apparent good order;" and this is, in effect, an admission by the company that the consignment, in so far as it was open to inspection, was in actual good order. If the receipt means that the thing receipted for was the car, it is obvious that the agent of the company must have known it was loaded with melons; and to this extent, at least, the statement that the inward condition and value of the contents were unknown cannot be literally true. If the things, the inward condition and value of which were unknown, were the melons themselves, this would necessarily be true in any case of a shipment of melons, unless it could be discovered from an inspection of them externally that their contents must be unsound. Taken all together, we think this paper is simply a receipt for a car load, or partial car load, of melons, and that its real meaning is that the melons themselves were in "apparent good order," which, as already remarked, is the same thing, so far as the company is concerned, as stating that they were in actual good order. This receipt was given by the carrier to which the melons were delivered at the initial point of shipment. It does not appear that the defendant company gave any receipt at all for this consignment of melons; but it does appear that this particular car of melons was delivered, in the course of its transportation to destination, to the defendant company, and, as will be shown in the next division of this opinion, that the line of this company formed one of several connecting railroads between the point of shipment and the point of destination. This being so, and the first company having receipted for the melons as in good order, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that they were in like good order when received by the defendant company; and, unless this presumption be repelled by evidence, the carrier, will be held liable accordingly. So ...