(Filed 27 November, 1911.)
Carriers of Goods — Failure to Furnish Cars — Interpretation of Statutes.
No substantial error is found on appeal in this case for damages against the carrier for failing and refusing to furnish cars ordered by the plaintiff for the purpose of moving cordwood from a certain siding.
Appeal from Cline, J., at August Term, 1911, of SampsoN. Civil action. These issues were answered by the jury:
1. Did the defendant* wrongfully fail and refuse to furnish the cars ordered by him to move his cordwood from the siding between Mints and Parkersburg, as alleged? Answer: Yes.
2. What damage, if any, has plaintiff sustained? Answer: $250.
From the judgment rendered the plaintiff and defendant both appealed.
Faison -& Wright for plaintiff.
Junius Davis for defendant.
Pee Cueiam.
Upon an examination of the record and assignments of error of both plaintiff and defendant in this case we are of opinion that the court below committed no substantial error, and that the case has been fairly and correctly tried.
No error.
Same case, defendant’s appeal, we find
No error.