Shellnut v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 August 1908 |
| Citation | 62 S.E. 294,131 Ga. 404 |
| Parties | SHELLNUT v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
A common carrier is bound to receive all goods offered that he is able and accustomed to carry, and to transport and deliver such goods in pursuance of the bailment; and, where he receives goods offered, the possession thereof by the person offering the same as freight being apparently rightful though as a matter of fact it may not be actually so, the carrier will not be liable as for a conversion, in an action brought by the true owner, unless the latter intervenes before the goods are delivered and demands them, or gives notice of his right to the property in question and of his intention to enforce it.
[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 9, Carriers, §§ 98, 99.]
Error from Superior Court, Haralson County; R. W. Freeman, Judge.
Action by J. T. Shellnut against the Central of Georgia Railway Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
Spencer R. Atkinson and J. S. Edwards, for plaintiff in error.
J Branham, G. E. Maddox, and E. S. Griffith, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff's suit was for the conversion of 33 described bales of cotton, of the value of $1,800, which were alleged to have been wrongfully taken and carried away by the railroad company. On the trial the plaintiff testified, in substance, as follows: He was familiar with the buying and selling of cotton, and had been shipping cotton for several years. The cotton sued for was part of a lot of 300 bales, which he had bought, and which he was negotiating to sell to the E. S. Ehney Cotton Company of Atlanta, through their agent S. O. Haney, with whom plaintiff was dealing personally. The cotton was stored in the Merchants' & Planters' warehouse in Bremen, and it was customary, in making sales, to make out an invoice of the cotton and deliver the invoice to the buyer when payment is made. The plaintiff agreed with the agent Haney to sell to the E. S. Ehney Cotton Company the 300 bales of cotton at a certain price per pound, and delivered to Haney, and also to the warehouseman, a copy of the invoice above referred to. The purchase price amounted to $13,000, and Haney paid plaintiff $8,000, which he received on account. Plaintiff's agreement with Haney was that the latter should get the cotton out of the warehouse, line it up, and grade it preparatory to shipment. As to who should make delivery of the cotton to the railroad company, and the circumstances under which such delivery should be made, the plaintiff's evidence is somewhat confused. At one time he testifies that he expected Haney to have the cotton loaded on the cars, receive the bill of lading, and settle with him afterwards as to the balance of the purchase money, while from other portions of his testimony it seems that Haney had authority merely to prepare the cotton for shipment, and was not to deliver to the railroad except in conjunction with the plaintiff. But the agreement between the plaintiff and Haney contemplated a cash sale, and a payment by Haney of the balance of the purchase money before plaintiff's claim upon the bill of lading was finally surrendered to Haney. The plaintiff had given the railroad company no authority to ship the cotton. After delivering the warehouse invoice to Haney, and receiving the $8,000 from him, the plaintiff left Bremen for a few days, and upon his return discovered that the cotton had been shipped away. Upon inquiry of the railroad agent at Bremen the plaintiff learned that Haney had shipped the cotton to the E. S. Ehney Cotton Company of Atlanta, the railroad agent stating that he thought it was all right. Plaintiff then made a demand of the railroad agent for the bill of lading, which was refused. No demand was made for the price of the cotton. Upon inquiry it was ascertained that Haney had left the place, and was not to be found. Plaintiff then proceeded to Atlanta, and demanded the balance of the purchase price from the E. S. Ehney Cotton Company, who stated to him that they did not "know him in the transaction," but bought the cotton from Haney, who was their road agent, buying under instructions from them, but who had no authority, in this instance, to purchase the 300 bales of the plaintiff. However, they paid the plaintiff $4,000, which he received, but under protest that it was not sufficient to satisfy the balance due him. The amount due him was $1,800, and the value of this in cotton the plaintiff calculated to be 33 bales of the weight, grade, and price per pound set forth in the petition; and the 33 bales sued for were the last 33 described in the warehouse invoice of the 300 bales. The cotton had been shipped in 100 bale lots, and the 33 bales in question were selected from the last lot shipped. Two bills of lading, covering 50 bales each of this lot, were introduced in evidence, showing shipment by Haney, consigned to "order notify E. S. Ehney Cotton Company, Atlanta, Ga." Plaintiff offered in evidence the receipt given by him to the Ehney Cotton Company for the $4,000 paid him, in which it was recited that the receipt was in full for all demands, "excepting my claim against the Ehney Cotton Company for the value of certain bales of cotton claimed by me to have been converted by the Ehney Cotton Company." The receipt was ruled out, upon the objection that it was irrelevant and a declaration of plaintiff in his own interest, to which ruling plaintiff excepted.
Plaintiff also excepted to the refusal of the court, upon objection upon the ground of irrelevancy, to allow him to testify that he owned a plantation at the time of the contract of sale of this cotton, and had produced on his plantation during that year 30 bales of cotton. Upon this evidence the court, on motion, granted a nonsuit, and the plaintiff excepted. Even if we view the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff in this case, we must affirm the judgment of the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial