Blue Ridge Collection Agency v. Southern Railway Co., 147 N.C. 593 (1908)

May 13, 1908 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

147 N.C. 593

BLUE RIDGE COLLECTION AGENCY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 13 May, 1908).

1. Railroads — Carriers—Revisal, sec. 2632 — “Intermediate Points.”

In shipments of less than carload lots, a point where they are ordinarily transferred from one car to the other in transit, at a junctional point on the same road, is an intermediate point, within the meaning of Revisal, sec. 2632.

2. Same — Arrival on .Sunday — Delivery.

When the carrier was allowed two days’ time for a shipment at an intermediate point (Revisal, sec. 2632), and therefore could not deliver it before Sunday, delivery on the next succeeding day was a compliance with the law. (Revisal, sec. 2839).

ActioN to recover a penalty, -under section 2632 of the Re-visal, for delay in transporting a safe from Thomasville, N. C., to Hickory, N. 0., tried before 1Ward, J., at October Term, 1901, of Oatawba.

From tbe judgment rendered the defendant appealed.

8. J. Ervin for defendant.

Plaintiff not represented in this Court.

Eeowh, J.

Tbe evidence tended to show that tbe safe was delivered to tbe defendant at Thomasville, N. 0., on Tuesday, 22 January, 1901, for transportation to Hickory, N. O., and that this safe arrived at Hickory on 30 January. Salisbury, according to tbe evidence, is an intermediate point, within tbe meaning of tbe act, between Hickory and Thomasville. Tbe defendant was entitled to two days at such intermediate point. Wall-Huske Co. v. Railroad, ante, 401.

As tbe defendant is entitled to a deduction of two days at tbe intermediate point, tbe safe could not have arrived at Hickory in time for delivery before Sunday. Tbe defendant, under section 2839 of tbe Revisal, was not required to make delivery on Sunday, and delivery on tbe succeeding day is in compliance with law.

His Honor erred in not making these deductions. Tbe judgment is reduced by them to $15, and it is so modified.

Let tbe costs be taxed against plaintiff and defendant equally.

This ruling renders it unnecessary to consider tbe interesting brief and argument of tbe learned counsel f<pr defendant, in which be asks us to reconsider tbe judgment in Watson v. Railroad, 59 S. E., 55, in regard to excluding Sundays in all cases. A recent discussion of tbe subject will also be found in Sully v. Railway, 16 S. C., 173; 56 S. E. Rep., 782.

Modified and Affirmed.