« ZurückWeiter »
1919 be purchased at Griffin a ticket entitling him
no van a Varon, an intervening station, and arrived
a te va passage upon an afternoon train,
tim. Bang directed to a train on the right-hand side
he warded the former; bat aiter it had en train to Fort Valley," and thereupon “ got off the hamile barche ? On his return to the station he made inthe skeles cerning the train he should have the ha vest train passing through Port Valley, which
per's. He was asleep when the train "rolled into
og hagyot and maket" him up. He then got off on the
manoma. it had belt, and he would be compelled
Ga. 463); and if so, there is no reason why a warranty of title in the sale of personal property should stand on any different footing. A warranty does not run with the article sold. If the title is not good, the vendee must look to him from whom he purchased, and to whom he paid the consideration : Central Ry. Co. v. Ward, 37 Ga. 531. The remedy of the subsequent purchaser is against his immediate seller, and not against the original owner.
We are not dealing with the rights of the holder of negotiable or quasi negotiable paper (Civ. Code, sec. 3685; McCay v. Barber, 37 Ga. 423; Lemmon v. Strong, 59 Conn. 448, 21 Am. St. Rep. 123, 22 Atl. 293); nor with the rights of the purchaser of a draft with bill of lading, elevator receipt, or papers described in the Civil Code, section 2956: Finch v. Gregg, 126 N. C. 176,35 S. E. 251.
785 Smith was not vouched into the suit by Harris against Newton, and is therefore not concluded by that judgment, even if the Civil Code, section 3617, applies to that class of cases. The fact that he was asked to intervene and defend in the suit by Newton against Williams for damages would not bind him for any element of damages for which he was not responsible, even though Newton sued Williams and recovered attorney's fees in that suit, and for fees and expenses previously paid by Newton in the effort to defend the title litigated in the Harris suit. Smith's liability and the measure of damages to be recovered against him on breach of the warranty was fixed by law at the time he sold, and could not be increased by reason of contracts or liabilities subsequently incurred or paid by his vendee.
Nor is Smith liable for the attorney's fees incurred by Williams in bringing the present action. There is no charge that he knew that the title was defective when he made the sale; no allegation of fraud or deceit, or that he acted in bad faith : Civ. Code, sec. 3796.
At De Geary & Hall, for the defendant in error.
Vita against the Central of Georgia Railway
man kan by an employé of the company. On the as the plaintif was introduced as a witness in his
bil sebastantially as follows: About the 5th
the line of the defendant's road from that
entre ... was not aroused until all the pas
may also "the conductor, or porter, or some offi-
Warranties of Title in sales of personal property are discussed in the monographic zote to Scott v. Hix, 62 Am. Dec. 460-468.
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v.MOTES.
[117 Ga. 923, 43 8. E. 990. ] CARRIERS. — The Reasonableness of a Regulation of a carrier, affecting the transportation of passengers, is a question of law for the court. (p. 229.)
CARRIERS_Right to Sleep in Waiting-room.—A railway company may insist that such of its patrons as contemplate taking a morning train shall, if they desire to sleep, find quarters other than its waiting-rooms. (p. 231.)
CARRIERS-Injury to Passenger by Employé.-A passenger who persists in sleeping in a waiting-room contrary to a regulation of the railway company, and so exasperates an employé of the company as to unfit him for his duty, cannot complain that, instead of being ejected from the room, he was wrongfully treated with un. necessary harshness and then permitted to stay there. (p. 232.)
Hall & Wimberly, J. E. Hall and R. D. Feagin, for the plain
tiff in error.
H. A. Mathews and Guerry & Hall, for the defendant in error. 324 SIMMONS, C. J. An action sounding in tort was brought by Isaac Motes against the Central of Georgia Railway Company, to recover damages for an assault alleged to have been committed upon him by an employé of the company. On the trial of the case the plaintiff was introduced as a witness in his own behalf, and testified substantially as follows: About the 5th of January, 1901, he purchased at Griffin a ticket entitling him to be carried over the line of the defendant's road from that point to Fort Valley. He took passage upon an afternoon train, which ran as far as Macon, an intervening station, and arrived there about 7 o'clock. He was asleep when the train “rolled into
depot, and . was not aroused until all the passengers were off," when “the conductor, or porter, or some official, came through and waked” him up. He then got off on the left-hand side of that train, and inquired of a man wearing the uniform of a porter what train he should take in order to reach his destination. Being directed to a train on the right-hand side of that he had left, he boarded the former; but after it had proceeded some distance from the depot, he learned that it was not “the right train to Fort Valley," and thereupon “got off the train and walked back.” On his return to the station he made inquiry at the ticket-office concerning the train he should have taken, and was informed it had left, and he would be compelled to wait for the next train passing through Fort Valley, which
tug nak lep in the waiting-room. In this con
parties, and walked to where the young man was sit
wieloma on the benches at any time previously, and
als the oficer at all!", but neither he nor anyone
e plaintiff's examination while on the
charge when the latter first aroused
, be "might have made some rebe paid to regard to what this oficial pas here andet himself, and immediately lay bra påten to rest
, after he went out, (and] I til guin go to sleep. Upon being again
calige would be sent to a hotel, be replied he
, whom the plaintiff him-
would not leave Macon until early in the morning of the following day. He then “proceeded to the waiting-room”; and, as he "was tired and sleepy from the fatigue of the day, .... laid down across the benches and went to sleep.” Shortly afterward, the official in charge of the waiting-room came and waked the plaintiff, telling him that was not a hotel; that the benches were made to sit on.' As soon as this official went out of the room, the plaintiff "laid back down in a reclining position,” not "in the same position” he 925 had before assumed, but in one which admitted of his resting upon his elbow and allowing his feet to hang off the seat. "It was not but a short while before the” official just mentioned came back into the room, pulled the plaintiff up, and told him he would send him to a hotel; that "he could not sleep there.” In reply, the plaintiff said he "did not care to go to a hotel." The official again left; whereupon the plaintiff "slipped back on the seat, where [he] could lay [his] head on the back of the seat.” He "did not lay down that time,” but put his "head on the back of the seat” and closed his eyes. "In a few minutes [he] was disturbed again by the same” official, who "pulled [him] out of (his] seat and jerked [him] around a little.” Plaintiff had his coat buttoned up. The official pulled it open, "jerking off some buttons," and threatened to carry plaintiff to the "courthouse" and lock him up. After shaking him, and while still having hold of him, the official demanded that the plaintiff show his ticket, and compelled him to exhibit it before he was turned loose. The official"did not make any apology for his conduct,” when shown plaintiff's ticket, but remarked that he didn't have any business there, any way,” as he should have gone on the train” which he had missed. Plaintiff was not further molested in any way, and left Macon on the morning train for Fort Valley. His coat was not injured, save that the top button was torn off. “The other buttons came unfastened,” as the company's official took hold of the plaintiff's coat where it came together at the collar. He "was not drinking that night,” but was merely drowsy and sleepy. He was pulled up out of his seat the last time he was disturbed; "was not to say sound asleep at the time, (but] was in a dozing manner.” Was pulled to his feet, though not carried off further than a few feet. The benches in the waiting-room were placed back to back, and were provided with small arms, so arranged as to divide the benches into seats. "The sitting-down places were entirely separated from each other all the way across," and the seats were "large enough for a person to sit on."
a thing butihi : 1 just noticed the officer shake the Awie, od tell him that he must not sleep in the
it be wanted to sleep, he had better go to heyrag man replied that he would sleep it he felt abang to the sesuat given by this witness, the the vom and returned in.... about twenty
plan cut of his wat and tore the buttons from
sa balik dl him rodels, and using him "pretty Le prema burther undertook to assert that the plain
na lida seat asleep when thus rudely aroused.
fated the young man from his seat to the floor, or
is, ha maid, "stretched on the benches asleep and gun bere laid down. Not only as to this last slid in other repacta, the testimony of this witnesa
During the course of the plaintiff's examination while on the witness stand, he stated that he did not remember having made any remarks to the official in charge when the latter first aroused him from his slumbers and told him he could not sleep in that room, as it was not a hotel, and the benches were made to sit on; though, 826 the witness said, he “might have made some remark.” He admitted he paid no regard to what this official said as to how he should conduct himself, and immediately lay "down in a reclining position to rest, after he went out, [and] as a matter of facť did again go to sleep. Upon being again awakened and told he would be sent to a hotel, he replied he “lidn't care to go to a hotel; that [he] would spend the night there." The railroad official doubtless understood him to mean by this remark that he did not intend to observe any regulation of the company with respect to the right of passengers to regard its waiting-room as a lodging-house; for it affirmatively appears from the testimony of another witness, whom, the plaintiff himself introduced, that in point of fact he did make an offensive reply to the company's official when first approached by him and told he must not sleep in the waiting-room. In this connection, the witness testified: “I just noticed the officer shake the young man awake, and tell him that he must not sleep in the waiting-room; that if he wanted to sleep, he had better go to the hotel
. The young man replied that he would sleep if he felt like it." According to the account given by this witness, "the officer went out of the room and returned in .... about twenty or thirty minutes, and walked to where the young man was sitting, and jerked him out of his seat and tore the buttons from his coat,” taking hold of him rudely, and using him “pretty rough.” The witness further undertook to assert that the plaintiff had not lain down on the benches at any time previously, and was sitting quietly in his seat asleep when thus rudely aroused “leaning on his hand, sitting in the seat." Witness “saw the officer approach the young man twice” only. The second time, "the officer jerked the young man from his seat to the floor, or to his feet, and said that he had told him not to sleep in there, and that he would see he did not do so." Witness was himself kasleep part of the time that night in the waiting-room and was not disturbed by the officer at all”; but neither he nor anyone else present was
, he said, “stretched on the benches asleep," and the "young man never laid down.” Not only as to this last statement, but in other respects, the testimony of this witness
Am. St. Rep., Vol. 97-15
CTRL OF GEOROLA Ry, Co. v. MoTEs. 227
de puld not stay there unless he did let .We taly ofered it," 928 though he held on
of nines "get enough to see where it was to 'Tang inter was said, save that witness told - vizes there; that his train was gone, and if he
right to have gone on the Albany train The Fitness approached the plaintiff only itu jug til length on the bench both times. .... fra is body over the arm the second time, with saat of the seat
, and he was occupying two seata
a ball for his ticket in order to ascertain ele 10 passenger; whether “he was going any. en el sebe "be had any right to the building or den te not allowed to lie across benches; it does 27 may tilata they hate." Witness "did not see size witing room lying across the benches asleep. Icelang on the back of each train in that shed at 222 pulance of the people, showing what train it sieme seat to. That was true in every instance at * Punti "explained how he got left:
differed essentially from what the plaintiff admitted was the truth with regard to what actually occurred.
The only other witness who testified on the trial was the company's official who had charge of its waiting-rooms on the occasion 927 under investigation. He explained that there were “three waiting-rooms at the depot: a colored waiting-room, a general waiting-room, and a private waiting-room for ladies," which was a small room opening into the general waiting-room, Ladies usually sat in this small room when unaccompanied by gentlemen, though the general waiting-room was provided for the accommodation of both sexes. While there were "no printed regulations for the government of the waiting-rooms at the Union Depot," there were verbal ones with regard to lying down on the benches, and as to sleeping in the general waiting-room; and the witness had been a number of times instructed not to permit a violation of these regulations. It was his duty to preserve order in and about the depot, and his “jurisdiction embraced the waiting-room” set apart for ladies and gentlemen, to which the plaintiff went. He was first seen by the witness somewhere between 8 and 9 o'clock, and was then in this waiting-room, sitting by the stove, with several others. "The next time [witness] went in there, he was lying down on the seat. He had moved down to the end of the seat then, and had his head on" one of the arms, and was "stretched out full length on the bench.” Witness "went to him and tried to get him to get up then, and told him to sit up, but he didn't do it. He just let his foot down off the seat, and lay there." A train was backing into the car-shed at the time, and witness had to leave to attend to other duties. When he returned to the waiting-room, plaintiff was still lying there, and witness “asked him again to get up and sit up,” saying "that was not any place to sleep; that if he wanted to sleep, he must go and get a room.” Plaintiff said he would, if witness would pay for it; but this the latter declined to do, and "insisted on his getting up and sitting up, and he would not do it. He would not make any move to do it, and (witness] caught hold of his coat right there, in order to pull him in a sitting position, not to pull him off the seat. A button broke off. He got up then and picked the button off the floor and stood up in the floor, and then was the time (witness] asked for his ticket, and he said he had it.” Witness asked to see it, but plaintiff replied he “never had any business to see it until train time," and that “when he (plaintiff] started through the gate, he would let” witness see it. Witness told him he would have to show his
ha megpest: "If you beliere from the evidence
est, we Wotes, after being informed by the officer
but he could not sleep across the benches in such pay r sold not lie across said benches for any purkita
believe from the evidence that Motes persisted tra il benches, after baving been informed by the Alberg dat he had no right to do so, then I charge you
Ta tersesary to enforce the regulation?' As will be a mast to charge was based upon the assumption
lang unga beaches and sleeping in its waiting estable. His bonor did instruct the jury in general
SE U osmary in enforcing reasonable regulations
se it was or was not within the province of the juny