{
  "id": 8653739,
  "name": "C. H. GASKINS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gaskins v. Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-09-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "18",
  "last_page": "21",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 N.C. 18"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "146 N. C., 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270671
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/146/0218-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 N. C., 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659457
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/144/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N. C., 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/134/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N. C., 743",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12117519
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0743-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N. C., 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270282
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/149/0261-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 421,
    "char_count": 8772,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2638743236798686e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6130795656426301
    },
    "sha256": "22ec4ee4d1e879a0c8fdf2678e320ce1fc290829835fa7761f2337e9eae1cffe",
    "simhash": "1:35db54c6f848a87c",
    "word_count": 1544
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:26.349792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. H. GASKINS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Walker, J.\nIt appears in this case that the fountain was delivered to the carrier by the plaintiff, who had sold it to Reit-zel, and who received from the carrier an open bill of lading, by which the latter agreed to transport and deliver the fountain to the consignee, Reitzel, at Liberty, N. C., the shipment to be made over the lines of the two defendants. The case, therefore, is governed by the principle settled by this Court in Stone v. Railroad, 144 N. C., at p. 228, and Manufacturing Co. v. Railroad, 149 N. C., 261. In the former of these cases we held it to be \u201cundoubtedly true that in the absence of any suggestion that the goods were not shipped \u2018open,\u2019 the delivery to the carrier taking a bill of lading to the consignee vests in the consignee the title to the goods, making the carrier liable to him for failure to transport and deliver. 'Prima facie the consignee is the owner of the goods in transit, the property therein vesting in the consignee upon delivery to the carrier, and he only can sue the carrier for nondelivery, tbougb a receipt was given to tbe consignor. Tbe carrier is entitled to consider and bound to treat tbe consignee as sucb owner, unless it is advised tbat a different relation exists, or unless notice of sucb fact is to be implied from tbe manner of shipment, as when goods are sent C. O. D.\u2019 Moore on Carriers, 188; Tiffany on Sales, 195; Crook v. Cowan, 64 N. C., 743; State v. Patterson, 134 N. C., 612; Ober v. Smith, 78 N. C., 316.\u201d\nIn tbe latter case tbe doctrine was tbus stated: \u201cIt is common learning tbat when tbe vendor delivers an article to tbe common carrier to be transported by tbe usual route to tbe vendee, taking an open bill of lading, tbe title to tbe article passes to tbe vendee or consignee. Tbis is true, although by tbe terms of tbe sale tbe vendee is to pay cash. For an injury to an article while in transit, or delay in transportation or delivery, tbe carrier is liable to tbe consignee. Stone v. Railroad, 144 N. C., 220.\u201d\nTbe case of Stone v. Railroad was approved in Cardwell v. Railroad, 146 N. C., 218, in tbe following language: \u201cWhen goods are delivered to a common carrier for transportation, and a bill of lading issued, tbe title, in tbe absence of any direction or agreement to tbe contrary, vests in tbe consignee, who is alone entitled to sue, as tbe 'party aggrieved,\u2019 for tbe penalty given by section 1467, Eevisal. This is undoubtedly a correct decision, applying, as stated, where it appears tbat goods are shipped and tbe bill of lading taken to a consignee, without more.\u201d\nIf tbe plaintiff bad shipped tbe fountain and taken a bill of lading requiring it to be delivered \u201cto bis order,\u201d or bad retained tbe title and control of tbe fountain in any other way, be would be entitled to recover for any damage to tbe property or for any delay or other default of tbe carrier. \u2022 He alleges, it is true, in bis complaint, tbat be retained tbe title, but tbis allegation is, denied by tbe defendant, and there was no proof to sustain it, and we must conclude, therefore, tbat there was no agreement with tbe carrier or tbe consignee to prevent tbe application of tbe ordinary rule which we have stated. If tbe plaintiff can show in another action tbat be retained tbe title to tbe fountain, be will be in a position to sue for any breach of contract by tbe defendant and recover tbe damages to which be may be entitled. We do not consider tbe other questions debated before us, for tbe reason tbat upon tbe record and tbe case, as they now appear, tbe court erred in refusing to sustain tbe motion for a nonsuit and dismissing tbe action.\nAction dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Walker, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. G. Rodman for plaintiff.",
      "W. B. Rodman, R. G. Lucas and J. E. Pou for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. H. GASKINS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al.\n(Filed 15 September, 1909.)\nCarriers of Freight \u2014 Consignor and Consignee \u2014 Title\u2014Evidence\u2014 Nonsuit.\nThe title to goods shipped under an open bill of lading prima facie vests in the consignee; and when the consignor, in his action for damages to the goods against the carrier, fails to offer evidence-upon his allegation that he had retained the title which is denied, defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit should be granted.\nAppeal from Peebles, J., May Term, 1909, of Beaueoet.\nThis action was bfought against the defendants, the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the Southern Railway Company, to recover damages for injury to a soda fountain, which was delivered by the plaintiff to the first-named company at Grifton, N. C., to be shipped via Selma, N. 0., to J. 0. Reitzel, at Liberty, N. C., a station on the Southern Railway. When it was delivered for shipment the soda fountain was in good condition. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint \u201cThat the soda fountain and fixtures were his property, and by agreement with J. 0. Reitzel, the consignee, they were to remain his property until accepted and paid for by Reitzel.\u201d This allegation was denied in the answer of the defendant, and there was no evidence to sustain it, it appearing only that the fountain and its fixtures were shipped under an open bill of lading, which was .issued by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company to the plaintiff.\nThe court submitted issues to the jury, which, with the answers thereto, were as follows:\n\u201cIn what sum, if any, is the defendant Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company indebted to the plaintiff ?\u201d Answer: \u201cTwenty dollars.\u201d\n\u201cIn what sum, if any, is the defendant Southern Railway Company indebted to the plaintiff?\u201d Answer: \u201cTwo hundred and fifty dollars.\u201d\nIt appeared that the ice shaver was damaged while the fountain was in the possession of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, and the defendant did not appeal from the judgment for the amount assessed by the jury against it for said damage. The evidence tended to show the following facts:\nThe Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company has a \u201cline of track\u201d from Grifton to a point beyond Selma, and the Southern Railway Company has a \u201cline of track\u201d which crosses the line of its co-defendant at Selma and extends beyond that place. The two companies receive and deliver freight at Selma from and to each other. This statement is taken from the answer of the Southern Railway Company, which was in evidence. The bill of lading issued to the plaintiff by the Atlantic Coast Line 'Railroad Company was also in evidence. O. H. Gaskins testified in behalf of the plaintiff as follows: \u201cI helped to crate the property; it was in perfect condition and worth $285. It was delivered to the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company at Grifton for transportation to Liberty, N. C. I last saw the property in the warehouse of the Atlantic Coast Line at Grifton, about sixty days after it had been shipped. I only saw the top and end of the fountain on its return. The agent objected to my examination. The marble was broken all to pieces; the ice shaver was missing. The ice shaver was worth $22.50. I know- as a fact that the fountain started to Liberty. I do not know whether it ever got there.\u201d At the close of this testimony the defendant Southern Railway Company moved to nonsuit the plaintiff. The motion was overruled and an exception entered.\nJ. A. Spiers, a witness for the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, testified as follows: \u201cThis shipment was received at Selma, 12 March, 1908. I delivered it to the Southern Railway Company. The wheel to the ice shaver was in bad condition.\u201d\nAt the close of all the testimony the defendant Southern Railway Company renewed its motion to nonsuit, which being overruled, it excepted.\nThe court charged the jury as follows: \u201cThe agent at Selma shows delivery of the fountain to the Southern Railway Company on 12 March, in good condition, with the exception of damage to the'ice shaver. (If you believe that the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company delivered the property to the Southern Railway Company at Selma in good condition, that would put the burden on the Southern Railway Company to show delivery in good condition at the point of destination. If you believe the testimony, you will assess the damage to the ice shaver against the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company and the balance of the damage against the Southern Railway Company.) You cannot give against the Southern Railway Company more than $262.50 damages. You are not bound to give plaintiff the amount of damages demanded by him.\u201d\nThe Southern Railway Company excepted to that part of the charge in parentheses. There was a motion for a new trial, which was denied. Judgment was entered upon the verdict, and the Southern Railway Company excepted and appealed, assigning errors as follows:\n1. That the court erred in refusing the motion to nonsuit.\n2. That there was error in the part of the charge to which exception was taken.\nW. G. Rodman for plaintiff.\nW. B. Rodman, R. G. Lucas and J. E. Pou for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0018-01",
  "first_page_order": 62,
  "last_page_order": 65
}