The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-08-09
WALTER V. ALABAMA GREA,
 SOUTHERN R R C0

| WALTER V. ALABAMA GREAT ! SOUTHERN R. R. co. action against common carrier for failure to safely deliver. frefaht.-- Appeal from the City Court of Bfr- mingham.
 1 l. Action against common carrier:
 sufficiency of complaint.-In an action
 asalnst a common carrier to recover | damages for failure to safely deliver
 goods shipped over it's lines, a count of I the complaint which Is substantially in
 the form prescribed by the Code for suit against common carrier on a bill of l iading, with some additional averments
 made necessary by the suit being | brought against the defendant as a con-
 meeting carrier, sufficiently states
 cause of action and Is not subject to de- l murrer.
 2. Same; contrfbutory negligence no | defense.-In an action against a com | mon carrier, which is not the Initial | carrier. for failure to safely deliver
 goods shipped over it's line, a plea | which sets up contributory negligence | on the part of tha pla a'rtiff Aa that the goods were Improperly loaded in the car of the initial carrier by plaintiff. or | his agent. presents no defense and is | subject to demurrer @-%%
 3. Same; same; sufficiency of plea.- | In an action against a common carrier
 
 ped over Its line, a plea which after setting up as a defense the contributory negligence on the part of the plaint:1 then ayers that the goods were not in. 1ured or damaged while in the possess | sion of this defendant" presents a de-
 fense. since if the goods were iBt dam | aged or injured while in the possession
 of the defendant there would be no l;a- | bility on the part of the defendant 4. Same: same. In such suit
 where there were several connecting
 carriers and an action is brought | against the delivering carrier, a plea ! which ayers that the car in which
 plaintiffs goods were transported was
 received by defendant from a connect l ing carrier and was closed and sealed | and so remained from the time of it's | delivery to defendant until 1t was de- l liVered to plaintiff, and that the con- | fents of the said car could not be seen | by defendant without its breaking the seal and opening the car, and that the contents of the car was not visible or | known to the defendant when it was re- cetved from the connecting carrier, and | that defendant hauled said carload of | goods from the place where 1t was de- | ltvered to defendant to Its place of des- l tination in the same condition in which
 1t was received. and delivered same to l plaintiff in such condition. and that if | said goods were damaged as alleged in ! the complaint it was not through the fault or negligence of the defendant. and is not subject tc demurrer. 6. Action against common carrier: burden of proof.-In an action against q common carrier for failure to safely de- liver goods shipped over its lines. where | it Is shown that the defendant was one of several connecting carriers, and was the discharging or delivering carrier. mad the contract of affreightment stip-
 ulated that the liability of each linA ia limited to loss of injury occurring en it's
 line. If 1t appears the goods were in sound condition when received by the initial carrier. and 1t Is further shown that upon the ir delivery to the plain tiff they were in a damaged condition. the burden is upon the defendant to show that the damage or injury did not occur while the goods were in its pos session or under its control, as a com mon carrier.
 6. Action against common carrier: right of consignee to maintain suit for damage to goods shipped over lines of common carrier, and there is no reser- vat of title by the consignor.-The con- signee of goods has the right to sue for their loss or damage by common car rier. notwithstanding he may not own all of the goods. or when another party may be the owner of them.
 Reversed and remanded.
 Opinion by Denson, J.