Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. McRae & Bro.

• Decision Date: 09 December 1913
• Docket Number: 5,155.
• Citation: 80 S.E. 211,14 Ga.App. 94
• Parties: SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. MCRAE & BRO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

80 S.E. 211

14 Ga.App. 94

SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. v. MCRAE & BRO.

No. 5,155.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

December 9, 1913

Syllabus by the Court.

A stipulation in a special contract of affreightment for the transportation of live stock, that the shipper has examined the car and found it in good condition, and accepts the same and agrees that it is suitable for the purpose of transporting the live stock, is, where based upon a sufficient consideration, such as a reduced rate of freight valid and binding.

A shipper of live stock who accepts a contract of affreightment made in his behalf by another, and brings suit thereon for its breach, cannot challenge the authority of the person who made the contract in his behalf.

An agreement on the part of a shipper such as that referred to in the preceding headnote amounts to a waiver of defects in the car which could have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care, and, in a suit for damages for injuries to live stock caused from defects in the car, the plaintiff carries the burden of showing that the defects were latent and not discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care.

Error from Superior Court, Montgomery County; E. D. Graham, Judge.

Action by McRae & Bro. against the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

J. B Geiger, of Mt. Vernon, for plaintiff in error.

W. M Lewis, of Vidalia, for defendant in error.

POTTLE J.

McRae & Bro. sued the Seaboard Air Line Railway to recover damages for injuries to a mule shipped in a car of live stock from Atlanta, Ga., to Ailey, Ga. The shipment was under a special contract of affreightment, made in consideration of a reduced rate of freight. The contract was signed on behalf of the plaintiffs by their agent in Atlanta. Among other things, it was stated in the contract that the shipper "has examined and found in good order and condition the car or cars provided by the railroad company for the transportation of said live stock, and hereby accepts the same, and agrees that they are, as thus provided, suitable and sufficient for the purpose." It was further provided in the contract that its terms and conditions should inure to the benefit of connecting carriers, unless otherwise stipulated by them. It appeared from the evidence that the mule was injured in consequence of having stepped upon a large nail on the floor of the car at some time after the transportation began. The jury found a verdict of $100 in favor of the plaintiffs; the defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and it excepted.

1. Stipulations in contracts of carriage similar to that set forth in the above statement of facts have several times been held to be valid and binding when based upon sufficient consideration, such as a reduced rate of freight. Williams v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co., 117 Ga. 830, 43 S.E. 980; Sou. Ry. Co. v. Tollerson, 135 Ga. 74, 68 S.E. 798; Central of Ga. Ry. Co. v. James, 117 Ga. 832, 45 S.E. 223; Ragsdale v. So. Ry. Co., 119 Ga. 627, 46 S.E. 832.

2. Having accepted the benefit of the special contract of affreightment made in their behalf, and having brought suit against the carrier for a breach of that contract, the...