Self v. Dunn & Brown
Supreme Court of Georgia
Carriers. Common-Carriers. Before Judge Parrott. Catoosa Superior Court. September, 1870. Dunn & Brown had a mill, and to make it more accessible, had a fiat for their customers to go to it across the pond. Self went there, procured his load, and, when re-entering the ferry to return, the fiat got loose, while his mules were on it and his wagon on land, and the mules were drowned.
Read the full summary
Carriers. Common-Carriers. Before Judge Parrott. Catoosa Superior Court. September, 1870. Dunn & Brown had a mill, and to make it more accessible, had a fiat for their customers to go to it across the pond. Self went there, procured his load, and, when re-entering the ferry to return, the fiat got loose, while his mules were on it and his wagon on land, and the mules were drowned. He sued Dunn & Brown as carriers for hire, averring the hire to be the custom obtained by the ferry. The evidence important for our purpose showed the following facts: The ferry was not chartered, but private; no…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCay, J.
As a general rule, a ferryman is a carrier, and, under certain circumstances, he is a common-carrier: Angell on Carriers, section 82. But a carrier is one who transports goods for hire: Revised Code, section 2039. A common-carrier is one who pursues the business constantly or continuously, for any period of time or any distance of transportation : Code, section 2040. One who “ pursues the business.” What business? The business of carrying goods for hire. A carrier is bound to ordinary diligence. A common-carrier can give no excuse for loss or damage but the act of God and the enemies of the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Epps v. ParrishCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Weber v. City Water Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1917
- Chancey v. CobbCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960
- Chancey v. CobbCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1960