TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Southern Express Co. v. Bass

Southern Express Company v. Bass

Southern Express Co. v. Bass, 102 S.E. 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 1920)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 7, 1920
Docket
No. 10556
Judges
Stephens
Citations
102 S.E. 16824 Ga. App. 7421920 Ga. App. LEXIS 498
Summary
Complaint; from city court of Carrollton—Judge Beall. April 7, 1919.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Stephens

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Stephens, J.

Where in a suit by a shipper against a common carrier for loss or damage to goods in transit it appears from the evidence that some of the goods were not totally damaged or destroyed, but were of some value, and the evidence fails to furnish sufficient data from which a jury might infer the value of the damaged articles, the verdict is without evidence to support it.

(a) Plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, a common carrier, for failure to deliver in good condition a shipment of eggs, alleging a total destruction of a part of the shipment; and it appearing from the evidence that some of the eggs, for the value of which the suit was brought, were totally destroyed, and others partially destroyed but retaining some value, and the evidence failing to show how many were totally destroyed or how many partially destroyed, and failing further to show the value of such partially damaged eggs, which should be credited against plaintiff’s claim for a total damage, the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict covering damages for eggs both totally and partially destroyed.

2. It was error on the part of the trial judge to instruct the jury that the burden was upon the defendant carrier to prove the value of the eggs partially destroyed.

3. Failure or inability on the part of .the shipper to convert into money such partially damaged eggs would not affect the defendant’s right to have credit for their value.

4. Properly construed, the suit was one in tort, and a verdict for interest on the amount found was contrary to law. Western & Atlantic Railroad Co. v. McCauley, 68 Ga. 818 .

Judgment reversed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1922: 11928: 11931: 11936: 119222026peak 1922 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe141 S.E. 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928)
  2. American Railway Express Co. v. Dubois Bros.111 S.E. 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)
  3. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe159 S.E. 760 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)
  4. Southern Railway Co. v. Black186 S.E. 779 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Southern Railway Co. v. Black186 S.E. 779 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936)
  2. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe159 S.E. 760 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931)
  3. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Hogrefe141 S.E. 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928)
  4. American Railway Express Co. v. Dubois Bros.111 S.E. 70 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922)

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
Western & Atl. R.R. v. McCauley, 68 Ga. 818 (1882) 15

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