
    Smith & Ramey v. The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and Saint Louis Railway Company.
    According to the evidence produced by the plaintiffs, the witness being the person who had actual knowledge of the fact, the car alleged to have been unreasonably delayed in its passage from East Borne to Borne was sent forward and delivered with as much dispatch as possible under the actual circumstances which existed at the time. This being so, there was no error in granting a nonsuit.
    July 24, 1893.
    Action for damages. Before Judge Henry. Eloyd superior court. September term, 1892.
    The testimony on the subject of delay in delivery of the car of meat was as follows: The car was sent by the defendant’s road from East St. Louis, Illinois, its destination being Nome, Georgia, and the date of the bill of lading being January 15. Namey, one of the plaintiffs, testified that the car arrived at East Nome on January 22d. There was no unreasonable delay until then. "When it arrived at East Nome, Namey notified Walker, the yardmaster of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Nailway Company, to bring the car over into Nome immediately, and Walker promised to do so within half an hour. The car was not delivered in Nome until after 86 hours after it arrived in East Nome. It is about half a mile from East Nome to the freight depot in Nome. The car could be brought from East Nome inside of two hours, even if the track was very much blocked and a great deal of switching had to be done; two hours -would be ample time. Nome and East Nome are two separate and distinct stations on the line of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia railway, and are numbered differently. Namey was in the railway service four years in Nome, connected with the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Nailway Company’s freight office. Walker, the yardmaster, was sworn for the plaintiffs, and he testified thus : “ I did promise to deliver the car of meat in Nome in a short while. I promised Mr. J. G. Namey to that effect. I did not deliver the car in Nome because of the crowded condition of the railroad yard. The car was delayed about thirty-six hours. Got the car in as soon as I could.”
   Judgment affirmed.

C. Nowell and W. S. Nowell, for plaintiffs.

C. A. Tiiornwell, for defendant.  