Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Whenever a shipper or consignor requires a railroad company to furnish a car to be used in carload shipments, in order for the consignor or shipper to avail himself of the forfeitures or penalties prescribed by the rules and regulations of the commission, it must first appear that the consignor or shipper made written application to the railroad company for the car, provided that the commission shall, by reasonable rules and regulations, establish the time within which the car shall be furnished after being applied for and shall establish the penalty per day per car to be paid by the railroad company in the event the car is not furnished as ordered; provided, further, that in order for any shipper or consignor to avail himself of the penalties provided by the rules and regulations of the commission, such shipper or consignor shall likewise be subject, under proper rules to be fixed by the commission, to the orders, rules, and regulations of the commission.
(Ga. L. 1905, p. 120, § 2; Civil Code 1910, § 2635; Code 1933, § 93-408.)
- Georgia Laws 1905, p. 120 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-9-51), was not unconstitutional and void on the ground that the title was not sufficient to include the conferring of power in the body of the act upon the commission to impose "penalties," or on the ground that the title did not cover the provision in the body of the Act making regulations as to the placing of cars. Southern Ry. v. Melton, 133 Ga. 277, 65 S.E. 665 (1909).
Ga. L. 1905, p. 120, § 2 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-9-51) was merely cumulative and a shipper who may have sustained damages by reason of a breach of the common-law duty of a railroad company, as a common carrier, to furnish cars for the transportation of freight within a reasonable time was not prevented by that section from instituting a common-law action for damages, instead of pursuing the remedy provided by that section. Southern Ry. v. Moore, 133 Ga. 806, 67 S.E. 85, 26 L.R.A. (n.s.) 851 (1910).
- Ga. L. 1905, p. 120, § 2 (see O.C.G.A. § 46-9-51) is applicable only where the gist of the plaintiff's claim is based on the violation of the carrier's public duty, irrespective of contract. Georgia C. & P.R.R. v. Durrence & Sands, 6 Ga. App. 615, 65 S.E. 583 (1909); Southern Ry. v. Melton, 133 Ga. 277, 65 S.E. 665 (1909); Georgia N. Ry. v. Snellgrove & Bozeman, 16 Ga. App. 344, 85 S.E. 790 (1915).
- Where the gist of the plaintiff's claim as set out in plaintiff's petition was based on the failure of the carrier to perform a specific contract, former Civil Code 1910, § 2635 (see O.C.G.A § 46-9-51) was not applicable. Georgia N. Ry. v. Snellgrove & Bozeman, 16 Ga. App. 344, 85 S.E. 790 (1915).
Cited in Southern Ry. v. Inman, Akers & Inman, 11 Ga. App. 564, 75 S.E. 908 (1912); Central of Ga. Ry. v. Rabun, 21 Ga. App. 402, 94 S.E. 598 (1917).
No results found for Georgia Code 46-9-51.