II. CARRIAGE OF GOODS. (A) Delivery to Carrier. 44 (Ga.App.) Where plaintiff's claim was based on the defendant carrier's failure to perform a specific contract, Civ. Code 1910, § 2635, relative to what a shipper may require, was inapplicable.-Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Snellgrove & Bozeman, 85 S. E. 790. (B) Bills of Lading, Shipping Receipts, and Special Contracts. 67 (Ga.App.) In an action for breach of a contract to furnish cars, matters merely tending to excuse performance of the general duty imposed by law constitute no defense.-Georgia S. E. 790. CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENTS. Northern Ry. Co. v. Snellgrove & Bozeman, 85 See Evidence, 155; Insurance, 239; I. RIGHT OF ACTION AND DEFENSES. 27 (W.Va.) A former owner, whose title has been forfeited to the state, has no litigable right while the title is so vested, and can maintain no suit to cancel a conveyance of the land, or any suit other than a suit to redeem, pursuant to Code 1913, c. 105.-Morgan v. Pool, 85 S. E. 724. II. PROCEEDINGS AND RELIEF. 37 (W.Va.) A bill praying cancellation of a contract and a cross-bill alleging cause for affirmative relief and praying enforcement of the contract held to present independent issues, so that failure of the original bill did not carry Ewith it the cross-bill.-Big Huff Coal Co. v. Thomas, 85 S. E. 171. CAPITAL STOCK. See Corporations, 60-66, 189. CARRIERS. See Commerce, 27; Constitutional Law, I. CONTROL AND REGULATION OF (A) In General. Where a carrier expressly contracts to furnish cars, it is liable for failure in respect thereto, unless the circumstances are such as to relieve from the performance of contracts generally.-Id. (C) Custody and Control of Goods. 76 (Ga.App.) The assignee or transferee of a bill of lading may sue for breach of the shipment contract.-Canby v. Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co., S5 S. E. 361. (E) Delay in Transportation or Delivery. 99 (Ga.App.) The consignee is not required to tender freight charges in advance of a demand that a "solid" car be so placed as to make its unloading practicable.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 85 S. E. 933. 100 (Ga.App.) The Reciprocal Demurrage Act applies only where the gist of plaintiff's claim is based on the carrier's violation of a public duty, irrespective of contract.-Georgia Northern Ry. Co. v. Snellgrove & Bozeman, 85 S. E. 790. 100 (S.C.) Under carrier's rules, demurrage held not collectible where car was unloaded and freight charges paid within 48 hours after car was placed on siding in proper position for unloading. Fennell Infirmary v. Southern Ry. Co., 85 S. E. 237. 102 (Ga.App.) Failure to deliver a shipment promptly when needed, or postponement of delivery until the necessity for use of the shipment has passed, will support an action for conversion, and authorize a recovery of the value of the property as damages.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 85 S. E. 933. (F) Loss of or Injury to Goods. 129 (N.C.) The repair of goods damaged in shipment by the shipper does not affect the consignee's right to recover from the carrier the difference between the value of the goods as delivered and as they should have been delivered.-H. W. Little & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 85 S. E. 18. 12 (W.Va.) Acts 1907, c. 41 (Code 1913, c. 54, §§ 71fI, 71fII [secs. 3020, 3021]), limit ing railroads to a two-cent passenger rate, is binding until determined by the public service commission on due application to be unreasonable and until regularly amended or nullified.-132 (S.C.) Though the bill of lading providState v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 85 S. E. 714. 18 (W.Va.) The public service commission will not be enjoined from exercising the power conferred on it by Laws 1913, c. 9 (Code 1913, c. 150, §§ 1-21 [secs. 636-6561), until it has investigated and determined that a rate complained of is invalid as to a particular carrier.State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 85 S. E. 714. (B) Interstate and International Trans portation. ed the carrier should not be liable for damage by breakage, proof that a soda fountain was redelivered broken casts on it the burden of delivered to the carrier in good condition and proving its freedom from negligence.-J. S. Pinkussohn Cigar Co. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 85 S. E. 1060. (H) Limitation of Liability. 154 (Ga.App.) To support a reasonable stipulation for exemption from liability in an in32 (Va.) Under rules of Interstate Com- terstate contract of carriage, it is not essenmerce Commission formulated under U. S. tial that there be an independent consideration Comp. St. 1901, Supp. 1911, c. 1 (U. S. Comp. or an alternative contract offered.-Canby v. St. 1913, §§ 8563-8604), held that a carrier could Merchants' & Miners' Transp. Co., 85 S. E. not allow a diversion of cars in an unauthorized 361. manner; that being a preference to the particu-158 (S.C.) A stipulation that the value of lar shipper.-Norfolk Southern R. Co. v. White- goods lost or destroyed should be computed at hurst, 85 S. E. 458. the place of shipment held valid, not being an attempt to diminish the carrier's liability. Grubbs v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., S5 S. E. 405. 283 (Va.) Where bar across door of railway mail car was removed by employé cleaning the car, with mail clerk's acquiescence, and not restored as promised, railroad company held not liable for resulting injuries to the mail clerk. -Washington & O. D. Ry. v. Carter, 85 S. E. 482. 163 (Ga.App.) Where an interstate shipment contract contains a lawful provision for exemption, and it appears that the damage resulted from the exempted cause, the burden is on the shipper to show that the loss was occasion- 303 (Ga.App.) A street car company, in seed by the carrier's negligence.-Canby v. Mer- lecting a reasonably safe place for landing its chants' & Miners' Transp. Co., 85 S. E. 361. passengers, should make such selection with reference to passengers getting off the car while it is at rest.-Bird v. Savannah Electric Co., $5 S. E. 621. (1) Connecting Carriers. 177 (S.C.) In interstate shipments the initial carrier is liable.-J. S. Pinkussohn Cigar Co. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 85 S. E. 1060. III. CARRIAGE OF LIVE STOCK. 218 (Ga.) Where a shipper of live stock made no attempt to comply with a special contract of carriage which reduced the carrier's liability and required a written claim of loss before the stock was mingled with other stock, the carrier is not liable.-Kent v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 85 S. E. 1017. IV. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS. (A) Relation Between Carrier and Pas senger. 241 (Va.) A railway mail clerk was a "passenger's action for injuries received in alighting 314 (Ga.App.) Petition in a street car passenger," to whom the railroad company owed the duty of exercising the highest degree of care for his safety.-Washington & O. D. Ry. v. Carter, S5 S. E. 482. A railway conductor need not carry out a ticket agent's illegal agreement nor allow a passenger to ride on a ticket which would be in violation of law.-Id. 254 (Ga.) A railroad company in selling round-trip tickets at a reduced fare may limit the time in which the coupon for return passage may be used, and after the expiration of that time may refuse to honor the coupon though the passenger offered to pay a sum in addition. Samples v. Georgia & F. Ry. Co., 85 S. E. 1002. while the car was in motion held demurrable.Dabbs v. Rome Ry. & Light Co., 85 S. E. 955. 317 (Va.) In railway mail clerk's action for injuries, statutes giving Postmaster General authority to require certain things to be done by & O. D. Ry. v. Carter, 85 S. E. 482. railway company held admissible.-Washington Postal laws and regulations as to mail cars and equipment, and pamphlet containing specifications for fixtures for mail cars, held properly admitted.-Id. 319 (N.C.) Where a passenger's conduct did not justify his arrest, but the conductor, ordering his arrest, acted in good faith, the carrier was liable for compensatory damages only.Carver v. Carolina, C. & O. Ry. Co., 85 S. E.. 293. Where a conductor wrongfully and unjustifiably ordered arrest of a passenger, and his act was wanton and malicious, punitive damages could be awarded against the carrier.-Id. 320 (S.C.) Whether a train stopped sufficiently long to allow passengers to alight in safety held for the jury.-Whitworth v. Columbia, N. & L. R. Co., 85 S. E. 402. (E) Contributory Negligence Injured. of Person 339 (S.C.) Where plaintiff negligently alighted from the side opposite the platform, and was thrown by the sudden starting of the train, her negligence was not the proximate cause of the injury, if it would have occurred had she attempted to alight in the regular manner.-Whitworth y. Columbia, N. & L. R. Co., 85 S. E. 402. 340 (S.C.) Where the conductor knew that passengers were alighting on the side opposite the platform, it was negligence for him to start the train before they had had a sufficient length of time to alight in safety.-Whitworth v. Columbia, N. & L. R. Co., 85 S. E. 402. 278 (Ga.) Whether the defendant carrier was guilty of actionable negligence and wheth-347 (S.C.) Plaintiff, who alighted from the er plaintiff by using ordinary care could have avoided being carried beyond her station held a question for the jury.-Fuller v. Western & A. R. Co., 85 S. E. 866. (D) Personal Injuries. 283 (N.C.) Where a passenger's misconduct justified his arrest, the carrier was not liable for mistreatment of him by police officers, arresting him at request of the conductor.-Car side of the train opposite the platform, held, in view of the carrier's acquiescence in the custom, not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.-Whitworth v. Columbia, N. & L. R. Co., 85 S. E. 402. 348 (S.C.) In an action for negligence and willfulness, held that the court erred in limiting instruction, that plaintiff could not recover for injuries due to his own fault to the cause of action for negligence.--Watkins v. South to review any judgment of an inferior court.Young v. Broyles, 85 S. E. 366. (F) Ejection of Passengers and Intruders. 355 (N.C.) A carrier held liable for the ejection of a passenger holding a mileage book, who 17 (Ga.) Where a demurrer was sustained had been told by the agent that if he missed con- to an application to set aside a judgment of disnection over the short route, he could take the charge of an administrator for fraud, held that longer route, and who offered to surrender mile- a writ of certiorari would lie to correct the age for the difference in fares.-Hallman v. judgment.-Seagraves v. W. E. Powell Co., 85 Southern R. Co., 85 S. E. 298. S. E. 760. II. PROCEEDINGS AND DETER MINATION. 357 (S.C.) A railway conductor may lawfully eject a passenger for refusing to pay an extra charge required by railways where pas sengers have failed to get tickets. Sanders v.36 (Ga.App.) The right of certiorari, if Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 85 S. E. 167. the remedy is pursued in due time, is unaffected by anything which may have transpired in the lower court.-Young v. Broyles, 85 S. E. 366. The right of certiorari may be exercised without moving for new trial, or may be used to review a judgment or motion for new trial.-Id. 358 (S.C.) Where a mileage contract provided that coupons therefrom would not be accepted on trains in place of tickets, the refusal of a railway conductor to accept such coupons and the ejection of the passenger offering them did not make the carrier liable.-Sanders v. At-40 (Ga.) Under Civ. Code 1910, §§ 4365, lantic Coast Line R. Co., 85 S. E. 167. 363 (Ga.) While one without a ticket may be at once ejected, the carrier is liable for damages if, owing to special circumstances as to time, place, sex, or infirmity of the person, the ejection at a particular place was improper.Samples v. Georgia & F. Ry. Co., S5 S. E. 1002. 380 (Ga.) Petition in a passenger's action for being ejected from a train at the last stopping point before her intended destination held demurrable.-Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 85 S. E. 847. 5188, held that an application for a writ of curtiorari was filed in time where the judgment complained of was dated November 19th, and the writ was sanctioned November 29th, and filed January 2d with the clerk of the superior court.-Seagraves v. W. E. Powell Co., 85 S. E. 760. 43 (Ga.App.) That the trial magistrate certifies that all costs have been paid by the petitioner and that he has given bond as required by law is not a sufficient substitute for the approval of the bond required, and certiorari was properly dismissed.-Lester v. Cone, 85 S. E. 766. 382 (N.C.) In an action for the ejection of a passenger who had been misled by the carrier's agent, the jury can consider, in awarding dam-44 (Ga.App.) Refusal to sanction the petiages, plaintiff's loss of time, extra hotel bill, and tion for certiorari held not error, where, though humiliation.-Hallman v. Southern R. Co., 85 the evidence was somewhat uncertain and unS. E. 298. satisfactory, there was some evidence to support the finding.-Rosenbusch v. Lester Book & Stationery Co., 85 S. E. 675. (G) Passengers' Effects. 389 (S.C.) An interstate passenger is bound to take notice of the rules and regulations as to the transportation of baggage filed with and approved by the Interstate Commerce Commission.-Harris v. Southern Ry. Co., 85 S. E. 158. 3972 (S.C.) Carrier's liability for destruction of passenger's trunk, as an insurer, was not terminated where the trunk was left overnight in the depot after arrival at destination. -Harris v. Southern Ry. Co., 85 S. E. 158. 405 (S.C.) A passenger failing to declare the value of a trunk checked as baggage can recover only the amount limited by the rate schedules in case of its destruction.-Harris v. Southern Ry. Co., 85 S. E. 158. CATTLE GUARDS. See Railroads, 103. CAUSA MORTIS. See Gifts, 53-80. CERTAINTY. See Contracts, 9. CERTIFICATE. See Acknowledgment, 25, 44; Boundaries, 36. CERTIORARI. See Courts, 190; Criminal Law, 1071-10812, 1132; Habeas Corpus, 54 (Ga.) Where the answer of the ordinary to a writ of certiorari states incorrectly the facts shown on the trial, or erroneously fails to contain proper pleadings, the party complaining thereof should except, and not move to dismiss the petition for certiorari.-Marchman v. Brown, 85 S. E. 99. 60 (Ga.) A motion to dismiss a writ of certiorari on the ground that appeal was the proper remedy held not to raise the question whether the applicant had filed written exceptions which had been overruled before he applied for the writ.-Seagraves v. W. E. Powell Co., 85 S. E. 760. CHALLENGE. CHATTEL MORTGAGES. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials of Transfers of Chattels as Security. 1005, 114;12 (Ga.) Notwithstanding Civ. Code 1910, § Justices of the Peace, 135, 206; Land- 3349, there can be no mortgage on a crop until lord and Tenant, 316; Municipal Corporations, 642. I. NATURE AND GROUNDS. 14 (Ga.App.) Under Const. art. 6, § 4, par. 5 (Civ. Code 1910, § 6514), certiorari is available it is planted.-Bank of Cusseta v. Ellaville Guano Co., 85 S. E. 119. (B) Form and Contents of Instruments. 47 (Ga.App.) The requirement that a chattel mortgage specify the property does not require For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER such a description as will identify the property IV. RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF COLLATERAL ATTACK. See Judgment, ~470-518. COLOR OF TITLE. See Adverse Possession, 75-103. COMMERCE. See Carriers, 32, 154, 163, 177, 251, 389. 172 (S.C.) In claim and delivery for person- VII. REMOVAL OR TRANSFER OF V. ERAL. 8 (S.C.) Statutory penalty, under Code Civ. E. 354. a death action may claim the benefit of the 8 (S.C.) Congress has, by Act June 18, 1910, 283 (Ga.App.) Unless an execution issued S. E. 354. 286 (Ga.App.) Omissions or irregularities shipment of liquor into a state for illegal pur- COMPENSATION. individual responsibility if no conspiracy was (B) Actions. See Agriculture, 15; Attorney and Client, COMPETENCY. the parents, brothers, and sister of a wife who See Evidence, 151, 155; Jury, 90-116; 21 (Va.) In an action by a husband against the relatives of his wife for alienation of her COMPOSITIONS WITH CREDITORS. compelled, or threatened to that end, or enter- See Compromise and Settlement. COMPROMISE AND SETTLEMENT. See Evidence, 213; Payment; Trial, 23 (W.Va.) Settlement by a defaulting cor- COMPUTATION. See Limitation of Actions, 46-102. CONCLUSION. See Evidence, 471; Pleading, 8. CONDEMNATION. See Eminent Domain. CONDITIONAL SALES. See Sales, 461-472. CONDITIONS. See Deeds, 144, 155. CONFESSION. See Criminal Law, 516–535. CONFLICT OF LAWS. tained any malice toward the plaintiff, held for CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. See Certiorari, 14; Counties, 173; Crim- 229; II. CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, 17 (W.Va.) A constitutional provision de- 26 (S.C.) The Constitution of the state is 42 (Ga.) Defendant in proceedings to abate See Marriage, 3; Telegraphs and Tele- 853; Leaf v. Same, Id. 855. 45 (N.C.) The courts have power and it is 46 (Ga.) Grounds of attack upon the consti- 48 (S.C.) In determining whether a general 2 (Va.) In action by a husband against 14 (Va.) In a husband's action against the it fixed by Const. art. 10, § 5, where there was 48 (Va.) A statute will not be declared un- |