95 Ga. 810 | Ga. | 1895
This was an action against a sleeping-car company by a passenger for the alleged loss of property, and resulted in a nonsuit. The substance of the material evidence is stated by the reporter.
The plaintiff, while asleep, could not possibly know what became of his lost effects. The employees of the ■company, or at least one of them, presumably would know all about it; or if not, ought to be in a position to explain the cause of his ignorance. Although it does not affirmatively appear in the present case that the plaintiff’s property was lost while he was asleep, yet as the evidence -warranted an inference that it was, the •company was-called upon to present its defense, and in so doing, to carry the burden, above indicated. Under the facts disclosed by the plaintiff’s evidence, the question as to when the loss did in fact occur ought'to have been left to the determination of the jury..
Upon a full review of the entire case, we think it one which should have been submitted to a jury, and that the court erred in granting a nonsuit.
Judgment reversed.