Southern Ry. Co. v. Black
| Decision Date | 18 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | 26637. |
| Citation | 196 S.E. 291,57 Ga.App. 592 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. BLACK. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
The filing of written notice of claim with railroad the day after arrival of shipment of apples, designating car number and day of its arrival, stating that shipment arrived in damaged condition caused by negligent service, describing in detail nature of damage, and giving names of employees of railroad who inspected car, constituted a sufficient compliance with provisions of bill of lading issued since amendment of Interstate Commerce Act, notwithstanding failure to set out any specific sum claimed as damages. Interstate Commerce Act § 20(11), as amended in 1930, 49 U.S. C.A. § 20(11).
In action against railroad for tort arising out of breach of contract of carriage of apples which were damaged, bill of sale executed by consignor to secure an indebtedness to bank and conveying as security therefor the crop of apples of which car involved was a part was properly excluded. Interstate Commerce Act, § 20(11), as amended in 1930, 49 U.S. C.A. § 20(11).
In action against railroad for tort arising out of breach of contract of carriage of apples which were damaged, sales record of plaintiff's commission merchant relating to carload of apples involved, and testimony relating to same matters, were properly admitted, where, in prior case, Court of Appeals held that such evidence authorized a finding for plaintiff, which holding was the law of the case.
In action against railroad for tort arising out of breach of contract of carriage of apples which were damaged, the sales record of plaintiff's commission merchant showing that carload of apples involved was sold over a certain period the amount of such sales, items of expense in handling apples, including freight and the net profit to plaintiff was not inadmissible as "hearsay," where sales record was identified by witness who made it, and witness testified as to personal knowledge of items and transactions mentioned therein.
In action against railroad for tort arising out of breach of contract of carriage of apples which were damaged, refusal to grant mistrial for improper statement made by plaintiff's counsel that railroad had plenty of money to hire lawyers to defend the case, but would not pay plaintiff his damages, and that railroad had plenty of money to pay off the damages, was error, notwithstanding counsel apologized to court, retracted his statement, and court charged jury not to consider the statement, where under evidence it was a close question whether plaintiff could recover.
In absence of prayer for general damages, a charge to jury relating to general damages is error.
Error from Superior Court, Habersham County; B. P. Gaillard, Jr., Judge.
Suit by R. P. Black against the Southern Railway Company for breach of contract of carriage for shipment of a carload of apples. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Reversed.
E. J. Kimsey, of Cornelia, McMillan & McMillan, of Clarksville, and Wheeler & Kenyon, of Gainesville, for plaintiff in error.
Sam Kimzey, of Cornelia, for defendant in error.
Syllabus OPINION.
R. P. Black sued the Southern Railway Company for a tort arising out of a breach of a contract of carriage for the shipment of a carload of apples from Cornelia, Ga., to Jacksonville, Fla. The petition alleged the delivery of the carload of apples for shipment, and in one count alleged that because of the defendant's negligence in handling them they were damaged and their market value totally destroyed. In another count only partial destruction was alleged. Upon the trial of the case the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendant's motion for new trial on the general grounds and several special grounds, which sufficiently appear from the following rulings, was overruled and the defendant excepted. Held:
1. The filing of a written notice of claim with the defendant the day after the arrival of the apples designating the car number, the day of its arrival, stating that the shipment arrived in damaged condition caused by the negligence and improper service of the defendant connecting carrier describing in detail the nature of the damage, giving the names of the employees of the defendant who inspected the car, although not setting out any specific sum claimed as damages, is a substantial and sufficient compliance with the provisions of the bill of lading, issued since the amendment of April 23, 1930 to Interstate Commerce Act, § 20(11), U.S. C.A., Tit. 49, § 20, par. (11)....
To continue reading
Request your trial