Hardison v. Norfolk Southern Railroad

Stacy, C. J. Several exceptions were taken to the introduction of evidence, but these are untenable, and the assignments of error based thereon are not sustained. The exception addressed to the refusal of the court to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, made first at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence, principally upon the ground that the consignee of said shipment, and not the consignor, is the real party in interest and alone entitled to maintain an action for its loss or damage, must also be overruled on authority of Piner Bros. v. R. R., 188 N. C., 339, where it was held that when a consignee of freight refuses to accept same on account *366 of damage in transit, and the shipment is subsequently thrown back on the hands of the consignor, the latter may maintain an action for such damage against the carrier. It was in evidence, and not denied, in fact offered by the defendant, that the shipment of potatoes here in question was rejected by the consignee and thrown back on the hands of the consignor, hence the motion to nonsuit, on the ground stated, was properly overruled. Anderson v. Express Co., 187 N. C., 171. The remaining exceptions present no new or novel questions of law not heretofore covered by our decisions; they call for no elaboration. The verdict and judgment must be upheld. No error.