
    The Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway Company vs. Holcombe & Company.
    "Where suit was brought against a railroad company for damages, resulting from "a failure to transport certain wood, which had been .placed along the line of defendant’s road for transportation, and where the testimony for the plaintiffs tended to show that, after they had notified and applied to the company to transport their wood, the defendant furnished transportation to other'parties engaged in the same business and who had applied therefor after the . plaintiffs had done so, and that, by reason of such failure, the wood depreciated in value, and they sustained loss; and where the testimony for the defendant was á. denial of these facts, arid tended to show that it did hot have the means to transport the wood, owing to the pressure of general business on the road, after a ver- . diet for the plaintiffs, the presiding judge did hot abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the ground that the verdict Was contrary to law and without evidence to support it.
    March 23, 1886.
    Railroads. Damages. Negligence. New trial. Before Judge Marshall J. Clarke. City Court of Atlanta, September Term, 1885.
    Holcombe & Co.- brought their action against the Atlanta and Charlotte Air-Line Railway Co., alleging, in brief, as follows: Plaintiffs were engaged in the business of buying wood .along tbe line of defendant’s road, having it cut a.nd shipped to Atlanta for sale. During the fall of 1880, plaintiffs cut and offered to defendant for shipment 1,200 cords of wood, it being .placed beside the track where it was usual and customary to receive it. Part of it was ready for shipment by September 1, and all of it by October 15. Plaintiffs applied- frequently to have the wood carried to Atlanta, and were frequently promised that it should be done, but being unable to obtain transportation, they sold the wood on November 12. It brought $2 per cord less than it was worth in Atlanta, besides freight. About a month later, plaintiffs again began to cut wood for shipment and sale, but before doing so made an agreement with the-authorized agent of the defendant that the wood should be promptly shipped. In..pursuance of this agreement, plaintiffs bought 2,000 cords of wood, and prepared to cut and ship it. They began offering to ship in December, but defendant failed to carry it. Finally defendant’s agent promised certainly to ship it on February 15, but in the meantime, the wood had accumulated on plaintiffs’ hands, .and they were compelled to. provide an additional place'for it and to incur expense therefor. No wood was shipped until in January, 1881; and then the market was glutted and the price depreciated. Plaintiffs were compelled to sell at a.less price than it would have brought, at the’time when offered for shipment.
    On the trial, the evidence was conflicting, and is sufficiently stated in the decision. The j ury found ■ for. the plaintiffs $2,500. Defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to- law, evidence and the charge of the court. The motion, was overruled, and the defendant excepted.
    'Hopkins & Glenn, for plaintiff in error.
    Hoke & Burton Smith, for defendants.
   Blandeord, Justice.

Defendants in error brought their action against the plaintiff in error and recovered' a judgment. A ’motion for new trial was made, upon the ground alone that the verdict of the j ury was against the law and without evidence to support it. The court refused to grant the new trial prayed for, and the railway company excepted; and bring the case here for review. ’ The main question between the parties in the courts below arose upon the issue as to whether the railway company had sufficient means at'their command to transport, certain, wood of .defendants in error, which had been placed upon theii’Iine of road, to Atlanta, conveniently without interfering with the general business of the road. The defendants in error, who were the plaintiffs in the court below, introduced evidence to show that, after they had notified and applied to plaintiff in error to transport their wood to Atlanta, the railway company furnished transportation to other parties who were engaged in the same business, and who had applied to the company for such transportation after defendants in error had so applied, and that, by the failure of the company to furnish such transportation, their wood had depreciated in value, and they had sustained damage.

The railway company introduced evidence to show that they did not have the means to transport the wood of defendants in error, owing to the pressure of general business on their road, and denied generally the facts shown by defendants in error. So the parties were squarely at issue on the main point. The j udges of the superior courts alone, under the laws of this state, have power to grant new trials in their discretion. This discretion is not arbitrary, plenary or dispensary, but it is a discretion to be exercised according to legal principles. The court below having exercised the discretion vested in him by law legally by refusing a new trial in this case, his decision must be affirmed.  