TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McDaniels v. Payne

McDaniels v. Payne, Director General of Railroads.

McDaniels v. Payne, 92 So. 604 (Ala. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Alabama · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 20, 1922
Docket
No. 6 Div. 651.
Judges
Gardner, Anderson, Sayre, Miller
Citations
92 So. 604207 Ala. 3461922 Ala. LEXIS 88

Opinion of the Court — Gardner

GARDNER, J.

Appellant shipped two trunks, consigned to himself, from Ensley, Ala., to Gary, Ind., the Southern Railway being the initial carrier. The trunks were never received or delivered to appellant, and this suit was brought to recover the value of the trunks and contents.

The cause was tried before the court without a jury upon the depositions of the appellant and his wife and exhibits thereto, and on the part of appellee upon the oral testimony of the two clerks at its freight depot at Gary, Ind., in connection with answer of appellant to interrogation propounded by appellee. Judgment was rendered foy the plaintiff in the sum of $180, and he appeals-therefrom upon the ground that the amount of damages awarded is inadequate. This is-the sole question here presented.

The depositions of the plaintiff and his wife place the valuation of the contents of these trunks at something in excess of $1,000. It appears that these trunks remained in defendant’s warehouse at Gary for more than a year, when they were sold as unclaimed' freight, and the two witnesses for defendant testified to having opened and examined the contents of the trunks. They exhibited before the court some of the articles taken therefrom, and stated that the entire contents were of similar character and of very little value. To discuss the evidence in detail-would serve no useful purpose, and such has not been the policy of this court since the passage of the Acts of 1915, p. 594. Pilcher v. Surles, 202 Ala. 643 , 81 South. 585 .

Suffice it to say that after a most careful examination of the evidence we find no just cause for disturbing the finding of the court upon the disputed question of fact involved, and the judgment appealed from wilL be accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. J., and SAYRE and MILLER, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1923: 119232026peak 1923 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Davis v. Harrell96 So. 616 (Ala. 1923)

Most recent

  1. Davis v. Harrell96 So. 616 (Ala. 1923)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Pilcher v. Surles, 81 So. 585 (Ala. 1919) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list