In view, of the ruling of the Supreme Court, in answer to questions certified to it by this court (138 Ga. 443, 75 S. E. 596), that there is no valid distinction between the facts of the present case and those in the case of Southern Express Co. v. Hanaw, 134 Ga. 445 (67 S. E. 944, 137 Am. St. Rep. 227),. and that neither the plaintiff’s right to recover nor the amount of such recovery is affected by section 10 of the interstate-commerce act (Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 382 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3161]), as amended June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1293]), or by the act of Congress known as the “Elkins act” (Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847), as amended June 29, 1906 (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1309]), the judge did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.