The Savannah morning news., 1903-06-06
JUDGE NORW0OD'S CHARGE
IN FREIGHT BILL CASE.
Declares That Common Law and
Customs of the Port Control.

Declares That Common Law and
Custer ms of the Port Control.
The trial jury in the case Of the
Central of Georgia Railway Company
against Gordon. Nicely & Co,
after being out less than fifteen min
utes, returned verdict in favor of
the plaintiff for the fun amount sued
for in the City Court yesterday.
The case was one which, as stated
by Judge Norwood, turned upon nice
point of law, and was controlled in
part both by the common law and by
the customs of the port of Savannah.
The railroad sued the firm for the re-
covery of S22660, which it claimed was
due for freight upon cotton. The agent
for the shippers, who received the
goods order notify transferred the bill
of lading to Gordon, Nicely and Com
of lading to Gordon. Nicely & CO., VINO
when they examined the cotton declin-
ed to take it or to pay the freight.
In charging the jury Judge Nor
wood invoked some principles and con-
strued the law governing the case at
bar in an interesting manner. The
matter may be taken to the Supreme
Court, as the decision effects other
part Judge Norwood charge was:
This is a commercial question which
turns upon a nice point of law. The
law controlling in this case is a part
of the common law and a part of the
customs of the port. The plaintiff
seeks TO recover an amount for freight
for transportation of 100 bales of cotton
and the defendants deny their liability
for il. They do not deny that the
rnad ic entitled 70 10 oh
You have to look closely at the
facts surrounding this transaction in
order to determine who is the party
legally liable for this freight The
holder of the bill of lading Endorsed
by the party to whose order goods are
shipped is presumptively the owner of
the goods, and the carrier is author
lied to so treat him. Therefore, in
this case, with the view that / take
of the law, it does not make any diff
ference what may have been the real
relation of Gordon, Nicely G. Co. to
the cotton. If it appeared to the rail-
road company upon the face of the
transaction that Gordon, Nelly & Co.
were the holders of the bill of lading.
and the railroad had no notice or
knowledge of the trade between r. A.
Cults and the firm, it would be author
lied to treat Gordon. Nicely & Co. as
the owners of the cotton.
i charge you that the surrender of
the bill of lading and the request to
issue due bill and its issuance by the
railroad to the defendants, all taken
together, constitute a delivery to and
acceptances by Gordon, Nelly & Co
for all purposes. When the railroad
issued its due bill the cotton was sub
ject TO the order of the defendants,
and they could have done with it
whatever they desired. The relation of
the railroad to the cotton, after the
issuance of the due bill, was not that
of common carrier; it's character as
a common carrier ceased when it
brought the cotton to Savannah, and
the bill of lading was surrendered. Its
relation was then substantially that
of a warehouseman. When the rail-
road took a surrender of the bill of
lading and issued it's due bill it thereby
released it's lien on the goods and was
RENTED to its rights against the per-
son liable for the freight"
After charging the general rule of
law in reference to commercial prom
ises being dependent upon a valuable
consideration, the court concluded:
Gordon, Nicely & Co. would have to
have surrendered something to the rail-
road in order to release themselves for
their liability, if they were liable, in
order TO induce the railroad to look to
Cults for the freight"