Case Name: LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY et al. v. YUDELSON
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1911-02-17
Citations: 135 Ga. 731
Docket Number: 
Parties: LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY et al. v. YUDELSON.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 135
Pages: 731–732

Head Matter:
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY et al. v. YUDELSON.
1. Where a box of goods was 'shipped' from New York City to a town in Georgia, and was, there delivered by the last of the connecting line of carriers to the consignee, if such final carrier making the delivery received and held the through bill of lading issued by the initial' carrier, on the trial of an action for damages brought by the consignee against . the final carrier, on the ground that the box had been broken open and some of its contents lost and other articles damaged, the bill of lading; produced by the defendant under notice, was admissible in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff without proof of execution.
2. Although it was competent to show what goods were in the box when it started, and when it was delivered, and for that purpose to show the weight at the beginning'and end of its transportation, and any admission which may have been made by the consignee in reference thereto, it was not error, upon objection, to refuse to allow a witness to testify that “plaintiff knowingly only paid the freight rate on two hundred and twenty-five pounds of freight” from the point of shipment to the point of delivery.
3. The criticism that certain expressions used by the court in his charge, in stating the issues, was calculated to prejudice the defendant’s case, was. not well founded.
4. There was no error in overruling the motion for a nonsuit.
5. Two juries having found in favor of the plaintiff on substantially the same evidence, the presiding judge having granted a first new trial but refused a second, no error of law having been committed on the trial, and the evidence authorizing the verdict, this court will not interfere.
February 17, 1911.
■ Action for damages. Before Judge Lewis. Greene superior court. September 10, 1909.
Joseph B. & Bryan Gumming and Parle & Parle, for plaintiffs in error. James Davison, contra.

Opinion:
Lumpkin, J.
A box of goods was shipped from New York to Greensboro, in this State. The claim was made, that, on its arrival and delivery, the box had been broken open and some of the-goods had been lost and some injured. The last carrier in the through line was sued. Notice was served on such carrier to produce the bill of lading, and, oh its production, it was admitted in evidence without proof of its execution. The' evidence does not expressly show how the paper came into the possession of the defendant, but it may be inferred that it took up the bill of lading on delivery of the goods; or if not so, then it received the bill of lading in connection with its transportation of the goods, and as showing the authority and contract under- which it acted. This was sufficient to authorize its admission in evidence. To hold the paper as a receipt or voucher is a sufficient claim of benefit under it to meet the requirements of the Civil Code (1910), § 5832. That section does not require that the paper must be put forward in the particular case as a basis of claim by the party holding it. Otherwise there would be no need to serve such party with notice to produce it. If he holds a contract, receipt, or the like, under which in general he claims any benefit, this is sufficient. See, in this connection, Williams v. Keyser, 11 Fla. 234 (89 Am. D. 243, and note).
In Campbell v. Roberts, 66 Ga. 733, a claim was interposed to an administrator's sale. The claimant served notice on the administrator to produce in court a deed from the decedent to the claimant. Upon its production, it was admitted in evidence on behalf of the claimant without proof of execution. This was held to be error, because it did not appear "how or in what way the administrator could have claimed a benefit under a deed conveying title out of his intestate into the claimant." The distinction between that case and the present one is obvious.
Further than what is said above, the headnotes require no elaboration. Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur.