Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-08-21
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY w. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
VIRclMlAM- PILOT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of interest to
Our People.
CARTER v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

CARTER v. SOUTHERN RY. co.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
June 5, 1900.
A PERSON WHO HAS CHARGE OF
THE GOODS OF ANOTHER AND
CONTRACTS WITH A CARRIER
TO SHIP THEM. WITHOUT DIS
CLOSING HIS AGENCY, MAY
MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN HIS
OWN NAME FOR A BREACH OF
THE CONTRACT.
carter sued the railroad company for
damages resulting from the breach of
contract OF shipment which the de-
iendant had entered into with the
pisintlff. On the trial the plaintiff in
iroouced III evidence Il receipt signed
by an agent of the defendant. of which
me loilowlng is IL copy: Received
rom w. Il. Carter the following arti-
cies III apparent good order, contents
and value unknown, as per coupon at
,acHeu' 10 be transported to w. r.. Car
ter. McRae, Ga, setting forth the ar
ticles shipped. The plaintiff testified
that the distance from the point from
Whlch me goods were shipped to their
destination was thirty miles: that they
should have been delivered in twenty
iour hours, which was q reasonable
time: that the goods were new, and in
good condition. when delivered to the
deiendant: that they were not deiv-
cred by it at the point to which they
were shipped until twenty-five DAYS
had elapsed from the time they were
delivered to the defendant; and that,
when delivered, some of the goods were
III such damaged condition that they
were rendered worthless, and all OF
them were more or less damaged. Just
before leaving the witness stand the
plaintiff stated:
The goods belonged to my wife.
Mary Carter. She owned them and I
mad the goods in my charge as her
agent"
There being no further evidence for
the plaintiff. the court upon motion of
detendantS counsel, granted n non-suit
on the ground that the goods alleged
TO have been damaged did not belong
to the plaintiff but to his wife To this
Judgment the plaintiff excepted
The court says:
The question presented for decision
is whether or not the plaintifr could
maintain the action in his own name.
1t is an elementary principle that the
action on a contract must be brought
IN the name of the party in whom the
legal interest Is vested and that the
legal interest in a contract is in the
person TO whom the promise is made,
ana from whom the consideration
passes. In the present case the plaintiff.
although in reality he occupied the re-
iation of agent of his wife to take
charge of the goods shipped, was
named both as the consignor and con-
s s,.s.n IN the contract of shipment,
with no reference whatever therein to
the fact of his agency. Under such
circumstances the action could he
maintained in his own name. Gene
rally. 1t is true, an agent has no right
OF acton upon contract made with
1Anrf L.
ton In his own name where the con-
tract Is made with the agent in his in
dividual name, though his agency no
known. Certainly the action could be
maintained where the fact of agency
ana the name of the principal are both
concerned by the agent. In such n case
inc agent is. in contemplation OF law.
me real contracting party, to whom
inc promise OF the other party was
nlttue. ana Who is entitled to enforce If
iint the plaintiff was the consignor of
the goods shipped. The contract was
maze with him and he is primarily liza
pic FOR the transportation charges
The carrier dealt with him as mo
owner or the goods. and could not. in
an action by the plaintiff to recover
me goods. dispute the title unless the
title of the real owner was sought to
TO enforce against the carrier.
The courts of both this country and
England are now, with few eXcep-
IONS. all agreed that where the con
Slgnor makes the contract of shinnnnt
with the carrier, he may bring nm oc
ton for loss of OF tutuTy 10 me con-
slgninent. although he may not be the
actual owner of the property. In such
n case the privity of contract between
the carrier and the consignor is n SUN
cient foundation on which to base the
action 1t is also well settled nv tbo
authoritles that where consirnor
who Is himself not the real owner re-,