Pullman's Palace-Car Co. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 05 June 1893
• Citation: 18 S.E. 364,92 Ga. 161
• Parties: PULLMAN'S PALACE-CAR CO. v. MARTIN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 364

92 Ga. 161

PULLMAN'S PALACE-CAR CO. v. MARTIN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 5, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

Whatever diligence a sleeping-car company may owe a passenger in guarding and protecting her while she is asleep in the berth assigned to her, with her money and personal jewelry in her satchel, she having the satchel beside her in the berth between herself and the wall of the car, if the company so negligently and carelessly guard and protect her while so sleeping that through its negligence the money and jewelry are stolen from her, and thereby wholly lost, she has a cause of action. Although the declaration in the present case is defective in no setting forth any particular act or omission constituting negligence, yet as there was no special demurrer on that ground, and as the declaration is good in substance there was no error in overruling the demurrer to the declaration upon which the court adjudicated.

Error from city court of Savannah; A. H. MacDonell, Judge.

Action by Elise C. Martin against Pullman's Palace-Car Company to recover for property stolen from plaintiff while occupying a berth in defendant's sleeping car. A demurrer to the declaration was overruled, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Jackson & Jackson and Pope Barrow, for plaintiff in error.

Harden, West & McLaws, for defendant in error.

BLECKLEY C.J.

The declaration is defective in not setting forth any particular act or omission constituting negligence in the defendant company; but there was no demurrer on that ground, and consequently no error in overruling the demurrers upon which the court adjudicated. The points taken in the demurrer were as follows: (1) "The declaration is not sufficient in law." This is a mere general demurrer. (2) "It appears upon the face of the declaration that the plaintiff by her own carelessness, so far contributed to the injury that but for her carelessness it would not have been sustained." We see nothing in the declaration on which to rest the ground of the demurrer. The plaintiff seems to have been quite careful, and there is no disclosure or intimation to the contrary. (3) "Defendant is held to answer as a carrier in the declaration, and no breach of the contract of carriage is alleged, nor did defendant sustain to plaintiff the relation of carrier." The declaration alleges that the plaintiff was a passenger for hire, paid by her to the defendant, on the...