Summary
In Washburn Storage Co. v. Mobley, 94 Ga. App. 113, 114 (94 S.E.2d 37) this court said: "Under Code §§ 12-104, 12-404, and the Act of 1938 (Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., pp. 390, 400; Code Ann. Supp., § 111-423), the defendant was bound to exercise ordinary care to protect the plaintiff's property, and his failure to deliver the goods on demand established a prima facie case for the plaintiff.
Summary of this case from Harper Warehouse v. Henry Chanin Corp.Opinion
36180.
DECIDED JUNE 27, 1956.
Damages; bailment. Before Judge Etheridge. Fulton Civil Court. February 7, 1956.
Palmer H. Ansley, Smith, Field, Doremus Ringel, for plaintiff in error.
A. Mims Wilkinson, Jr., Ralph A. Bragg, contra.
The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for new trial.
DECIDED JUNE 27, 1956.
W. R. Mobley brought an action against the Washburn Storage Co. to recover the value of certain personalty that had been stored with the defendant. The personalty was destroyed by a fire, the origin of which, according to the evidence, was unknown. The fact that the defendant's warehouse burned, and the fact that the plaintiff's personalty was destroyed in such fire, is unquestioned. The trial judge hearing the case without the intervention of a jury rendered a judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant filed a motion for new trial on the usual general grounds only, which was overruled, and it is to this judgment that the defendant excepts.
Under Code §§ 12-104, 12-404, and the act of 1938 (Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., pp. 390, 400; Code, Ann. Supp., § 111-423), the defendant was bound to exercise ordinary care to protect the plaintiff's property, and his failure to deliver the goods on demand established a prima facie case for the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant could prevail only by establishing that he had exercised ordinary care to prevent the loss or destruction of the plaintiff's property.
The evidence presented on the trial of the case supported the judgment of the trial judge hearing the case without the intervention of a jury, and did not demand a finding that the defendant had exercised ordinary care to prevent the loss or destruction of the plaintiff's property. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion for new trial.
Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Quillian, J., concur.