Mann v. Glauber
Mann & Melton v. Glauber & Isaacs
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Lumpkin, J.
1. The charge complained of, to the effect that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, delivery to a common carrier is delivery to the consignee, was correct. Falvey & Co. v. Richmond, 87 Ga. 99 .
2. The request to charge, while in some respects legal and pertinent, contained at its conclusion expressions calculated to confuse and mislead the jury, and was therefore properly refused; the evidence fully warranted the verdict, and there was no error in denying a newtrial. Judgment affirmed.
G. J. Holton & Son, for plaintiffs in error. Graham & Parker, contra.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.