Case Name: The Central Railroad vs. Rogers & Sons
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1880-09
Citations: 66 Ga. 251
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Central Railroad vs. Rogers & Sons.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
The Central Railroad vs. Rogers & Sons.
(Jackson, Chief Justice, being disqualified, having been of counsel, Hon. George Hill-yer, Judge of the Atlanta circuit, was designated by the governor to preside in his place.)
Where two disinterested persons, on the oral request of both the owner and the railroad company, made a survey of damaged freight and reported on the same, but the effort thus made did not result in adjusting the dispute, and a suit was afterwards brought to recover the damages, the report or finding of such disinterested persons was not admissible in evidence, at the instance of either party, over the objection of the other, even though made in writing, and even though it had long been the custom of the railroad company, and its custom at that place, to adjust such disputes it that manner.
2. Where a railroad company received goods and carried them over its line from a connecting road, such goods are presumed to be re ceived “as in good order,” within the meaning of section 2084 oi0 the revised Code, if nothing appears to the contrary.
3. The principle of liability fixed by section 2084 applies whether the goods pass over all the lines on the same car, or at any terminal point are transferred or loaded from the car of one line on to that of another, and it makes no difference whether the goods go all the way on the same bill of lading or how often new ones are substituted on the way.
4. In this case the evidence was conflicting as to whether the goods were damaged in the hands of the consignor before shipment on the initial line, and that question having been fairly submitted to and passed upon by the jury, and the judge who tried the case being satisfied with the verdict, this court will not interfere.
5. There was no error in allowing the amendment correcting the mistake in the name of the defendant corporation, especially after it had appeared and pleaded.

Opinion:
HlLLYER, Judge.