M.H. Felder & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 September 1932
• Docket Number: 13475.
• Parties: M. H. FELDER & CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

165 S.E. 730

167 S.C. 59

M. H. FELDER & CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO.

No. 13475.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 10, 1932

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; B. H Moss, Judge.

Action by M. H. Felder & Co. against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Appeal dismissed and judgment affirmed.

John S Bowman, of Orangeburg, for appellant.

Lide & Felder and C. E. Summers, all of Orangeburg, and Douglas McKay, of Columbia, for respondent.

BONHAM J.

Appellant brought its action against the respondent to recover the sum of $99, alleged damages to a shipment of potatoes by D. J Halloran & Co. of Boston to themselves at Savannah, Ga advise J. L. Budreau Company. From Savannah the potatoes were shipped over respondent's line of railroad to Orangeburg, S. C., and it is claimed by plaintiff that the shipment was in a damaged condition when unloaded. A claim for $99, the amount of the alleged damage, was filed and payment refused. This suit followed in the county court for Orangeburg county.

The action is predicated upon the view that the shipment was a through one from Boston to Orangeburg; that the defendant was the connecting terminal carrier, and delivered the goods in a damaged condition--hence is liable.

The defense is founded upon the view that the original shipment from Boston terminated at Savannah, that the shipment from Savannah was a new contract of shipment, and that the presumption that the damage occurred on defendant's line did not arise.

At the close of the testimony for plaintiff, the defendant moved for a directed verdict which was granted on the ground that there was no evidence that the potatoes were in sound condition when delivered to the defendant at Savannah.

The plaintiff appeals upon four exceptions, but there is, really, but one question, viz.: If the shipment was a through one from Boston to Orangeburg, plaintiff had a cause of action against respondent and such proof to sustain it as entitled it to go to the jury. If the original contract of transportation ended at Savannah, and a new one was made when the potatoes were shipped from Savannah to Orangeburg, and plaintiff offered no evidence of the sound condition of the commodity, when shipped from Savannah, then the plaintiff failed in its proof, and the trial judge was correct when he directed the verdict in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff introduced all the evidence--the defendant offered none.

There can be no denial of the correctness of the two propositions for which appellant contends, to wit: (1) That, when a through shipment is delivered in a damaged condition, the presumption is that the damage occurred on the line of the connecting terminal carrier; (2) that a consignor has the right to divert a shipment while it is in transit. Plaintiff's trouble is that there is no evidence in this case to which these rules of law are applicable. The evidence shows conclusively that this was not a through shipment from Boston to...