Opinion

Barnard v. Howard Sober, Inc.

  • 226 N.C. 392
  • 38 S.E.2d 153
  • 1946 N.C. LEXIS 447
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
May 22, 1946
Status
Published
Author
Denny
On the bench
Denny
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 51.2%

The opinion

Denny, J.

The primary question involved on this appeal is whether the plaintiff in the trial below, offered any competent evidence tending to show that the engine in the plaintiff’s 1941 Ford bus was in good condition when delivered to the agent of the defendant on 1 June, 1944, at Bichmond, Ind., for transportation to Greensboro, N. C.

The defendant insists that the receipt given the Wayne Works, to the effect that the property delivered to its agent was in good condition, is limited to the items described on the reverse side of the receipt and does not include the chassis or the engine of the bus. We do not so hold, in view of the fact that the itemized list on the reverse of the receipt states that it is continued on the next page and on the next page information is

*395

given, as to the body, model, chassis and engine of the bus. We think the engine was included in the list of items for which the defendant issued its receipt and stated therein that, “all of the same are delivered to the undersigned in good condition and as set forth.”

Merchant v. Lassiter,

224 N. C., 343 , 30 S. E. (2d), 217 ;

Hutchins v. Taylor-Buick Co.,

198 N. C., 777 , 153 S. E., 397 ;

Brown v. Express Co.,

192 N. C., 25 , 133 S. E., 414 ;

Beck v. Wilkins,

179 N. C., 231 , 102 S. E., 313 . Moreover, under the Rules and Regulations governing a shipment of this character, among other things, it is provided: “Carrier will not accept for transportation under its own power, any vehicle which due to its mechanical condition, in the judgment of the carrier, cannot be operated in that manner or which cannot, due to size or special construction, be safely handled by the carrier in full compliance with all state laws and regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission.”

The defendant denies that it is a common carrier and while there is evidence tending to show otherwise, we need not decide on this appeal whether the defendant is a common carrier or a bailee for hire. In either event, we think the evidence sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The judgment of the court below is

Reversed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.