Rochelle Gin & Cotton Co. v. Fisher

This case is controlled by the ruling' of the Supreme Court in Hamilton v. Moore, 94 Ga. 707 (19 S. E. 993), and the trial judge did not err in refusing a new trial.

{a) The evidence was sufficient to prove the existence of a custom by virtue of which the defendant, as warehouseman, undertook to insure the cotton of its customers.(6) The stipulation in the warehouse receipts delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant as warehouseman, that the' cotton was “subject to the presentation of this receipt only, the paying of customary expenses and advances, acts of fire and Providence excepted,” so…