Case ID: ga_83/html/0796-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wolff & Reesing v. Falvey & Company.
    Simmons, J.—The facts of this case are fully set out in the official report. Under those facts, there was no error in the judgment of the trial judge in overruling the certiorari.
    
    October 28, 1889.
    Verdict. Evidence. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. Fulton superior court. October term, 1888.
    Attachment in justice’s court. Plaintiffs’ testimony showed that on'October 10, 1885, they gave to a broker and agent of defendants an order for salt fish of that year’s catch, which arrived about fifteen days after-wards, but were not used by plaintiffs until late in November, when they were discovered to be soft, defective, unsalable, without brine, and apparently of the last year’s catch. Some were' sold but were returned by the buyers; and finally all were sent to auction, but nothing could be realized from them. The amount paid for them to defendants, and for freight, was a total loss to plaintiffs.
   Judgment affirmed.

Defendants’ testimony tended to show that the fish were, when shipped, of that year’s catch, in good condition, properly supplied with brine in sound, tight kegs ; and that the bill for them was $51. On this bill was stamped: “All the fish in kegs shipped at purchaser’s risk only; we ship same in good order and condition ; there our responsibility ceases.” After the shipment, defendants received from plaintiffs an order for other goods, dated November 30,1885, in which was no mention of any defect in the fish, payment for which was made without complaint. The first complaint defendants received was a letter dated December 28,1885, the postmark on which was dated January 13, 1886.

There was a verdict for plaintiffs for $50 and costs. On certiorari, defendants assigned this as contrary to law and evidence ; and to the judgment of the supeidor court sustaining it they excepted.

W. A. Brown, W. J. Albert and E. A. Angier, for plaintiffs in error.

Thos. E. Corrigan, contra.