Self v. Brown

• Citation: 42 Ga. 529
• Parties: F. T. SELF, plaintiff in error. v. DUNN & BROWN, defendants in error.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1871
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

42 Ga. 529

F. T. SELF, plaintiff in error. v. DUNN & BROWN, defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1871.)

Carriers. Common-Carriers. Before Judge Parrott. Catoosa Superior Court. September, 1870.

Dunn & Brown had a mill, and to make it more accessible, had a flat for their customers to go to it across the pond. Self went there, procured his load, and, when re-entering the ferry to return, the flatgot loose, while his mules were on it and his wagon on land, and the mules were drown. He *sued Dunn & Brown as carriers for hire, averring the hire to be the custom obtained by the ferry. The evidence important for our purpose showed the following facts: The ferry was not chartered, but private; no toll was charged upon it, but it did increase the custom of the mill, by rendering the mill more accessible to certain customers. Defendant\'s counsel requested the Court to charge that, "if this was a private ferry, built by defendants for the accommodation of themselves and a portion of their customers, to the mill, and defendants did not charge toll or compensation for putting persons over on said flat, and charged plaintiff nothing for carrying him over, defendants are not bound to the diligence of a common-carrier, nor of a carrier for hire, but were only bound to use slight care, and liable for gross neglect."

The Court refused so to charge, but charged: "If defendants established their ferry for the accommodation of their customers, and thereby persons were induced to go to their mills, they were common-carriers for such persons, and if plaintiff was their customer, they were bound to extraordinary diligence, and liable for any loss accruing to their customers, without fault of the customers. Ferrymen are common-carriers. Common-carriers are bound to extraordinary diligence. If the ferry was a gratuity; that, is by it, no benefit accrued to defendants, no custom was brought to their mill, they would not be common-carriers, and would be bound to only ordinary diligence, " and vice versa.

The jury found for the plaintiff. A new trial, upon the grounds, that the Court erred in not charging as requested, and in charging *as he did, etc., was granted. That is assigned as error.

A. T. Hackett; W. H. Dabney, for plaintiff in error. Ferryman bound for neglect, etc.: R. Code, sec. 750. Private ferryman may be common-carrier: Ang. on L. Car., marg. p. 82, sec. 734. What is hire: Story on Bailm, 469 and note, 495 and note; Ang. on L. of Car., 113, note 1.

*McCutchen & Shumate, for defendants, who is a common-carrier: Story on Bailm., sec. 495; Ang. on Carriers, sec. 68; R. Code, sees. 2039, 2040. When ferryman is common-carrier: Ang. on Car., sec. 82. Private carriers: Ang. on Car., sees. 123, 124; Story on Bailm., sec. 508; R. Code, sec. 2043.

McCAY, J.

As a general rule, a ferryman is a carrier, and, under certain circumstances, he is a common-carrier: Angell on Carriers, section 82. But a carrier is one who transports goods for hire: Revised Code, section 2039. A common-carrier is one who pursues the business constantly or continuously, for any period of time or any...