Fleetwood v. Swift & Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Action for damages; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. January 18, 1921. Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Action for damages; from Colquitt superior court — Judge Thomas. January 18, 1921. Application for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. This action was for damages on account of certain injuries to the plaintiff and certain expenses connected with the illness and burial of his infant child, all alleged, to have been occasioned by the part consumption of a package of butter, containing a decomposed mouse-head, which the plaintiff had fought of a local firm of retail grocers, branded as “ Brookfield Creamery Butter,” and which had been packed and distributed to the grocer for retail sale…
1Opinion of the CourtJenkins, P. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) It is the contention of the defendant that the nonsuit -was proper, on the theory that, since the defendant in its answer has denied that it manufactured or packed the shipment, and since, as he contends, the plaintiff’s evidence shows that the defendant -was but the mere distributor of the merchandise, the defendant could not be held liable for any negligence, since it could not be the duty of a mere distributor to open up, cut into, and inspect the sealed packages; and it is urged that, without doing so, there could manifestly be nothing to indicate the…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Burkhardt v. Armour & Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- King Hardware Co. v. EnnisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1929
- Sencer v. Carl's MarketSupreme Court of Florida · 1950
- Donaldson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- De Gouveia v. H. D. Lee Mercantile Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1936
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.