Means v. Bank of Randall, 63

Decision Date19 December 1892
Docket NumberNo. 63,63
Citation146 U.S. 620,36 L.Ed. 1107,13 S.Ct. 186
PartiesMEANS et al. v. BANK OF RANDALL
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

B. P. Waggener, for plaintiffs in error.

Edward H. Stiles and Chas. Blood Smith, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action brought in the district court for the county of Cloud, in the state of Kansas, by the Bank of Randall, a Kansas corporation, doing business at Randall, in that state, against C. G. Means, W. W. Means, and C. H. Means, copartners as C. G. Means & Sons, to recover $6,700, $4 protest fees, and $402 damages. The suit was accompanied by an attachment, and, before answer, was removed by the defendants, who were citizens of Missouri, into the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas.

The amended petition filed in the circuit court of the United States set forth the following cause of action: On September 14, 1887, one Patterson was the owner of 98 cattle, of the value of $6,700, while he agreed to sell to one Lyons, who applied to one Bramwell, the cashier and agent of the plaintiff, for a loan of $6,700, to pay for the cattle, until he could ship them to Kansas City and sell them. It was agreed by Patterson, Lyons, and the plaintiff that, if the plaintiff would advance and pay to Patterson $6,600 and $100 for expenses, the plaintiff should have a lien upon the cattle, and retain the title to them, until the money was repaid; that the cattle should be shipped by Lyons as consignor, by way of the Missouri Pacific Railroad, to the defendants at Kansas City, Mo.; and that four car loads of the cattle were to be shipped in the name of Lyons as consignor, and two car loads in the name of one Guthrie as consignor. The defendants were engaged at the time in buying and selling live stock at Kansas City. In pursuance of that agreement, Patterson sold and delivered the 98 cattle to Lyons, and the plaintiff paid to Patterson the $6,700. Lyons delivered the cattle on board the cars of the railroad company in the town of Randall, consigned to the defendants at Kansas City, and received from the railroad company one bill of lading, for four cars, by which that company acknowledged the receipt of the cattle from Lyons, and agreed to deliver them to the defendants at Kansas City. This bill of lading Lyons indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff. No bill of lading was issued to Guthrie, but, by agreement between the agent of the railroad company, Lyons, and the plaintiff, two cars were loaded each with 16 steers, and shipped to the defendants at Kansas City, as consignees, and Guthrie as consignor. The four cars for which the bill of lading was issued in the name of Lyons contained 66 steers in all. It was agreed by the company, Lyons, and the plaintiff that the plaintiff waived no title to the steers, or to the money to be derived from their sale, by permitting them to be shipped in the name of Guthrie; and that they should be delivered to the defendants with the other steers, and the proceeds be applied to the payment of the $6,700. Thereupon Lyons drew his draft on the defendants, dated September 14, 1887, whereby he directed them to pay to his order $6,700, at sight, in Kansas City, which draft he indorsed and delivered to the plaintiff. The 98 steers were transported by the railroad company to Kansas City, and to the stock yards there, and on September 15, 1887, at 9 o'clock A. M., delivered to the defendants according to the contract set out in the bill of lading. The defendants received the steers, sold them for account of Lyons, converted the proceeds to their own use and benefit, and refused to pay the plaintiff for any of them or render to it any account of sales. At the time the steers were delivered to the defendants, the latter were advised by Lyons that the plaintiff had advanced the money to pay for the steers, and that Lyons had drawn his draft on the defendants and assigned it to the plaintiff. By those transactions the plaintiff became the owner of the steers, and entitled to their proceeds. On September 15, 1887, at 11 o'clock A. M., the draft and bill of lading were presented to the cashier of the defendants, at their office in the Kansas City stock yards, and payment demanded. The cashier, after examining the draft, directed the bank messengers who brought it to leave it at the Stock-Yards Bank, promising to pay it if they would do so. The draft was so deposited, at 2:30 o'clock P. M. of the same day was presented by the messengers of that bank to the defendants at their office, payment was refused, and the draft was protested for nonpayment. When the draft and bill of lading were first presented to the defendants, the steers had not been disposed of by them, and were being received by them from the cars. For more than 12 months before September 14, 1887, Lyons had been engaged in shipping stock to the defendants, and accustomed to drawing drafts in favor of the plaintiff and others against such shipments, and transferring the bills of lading and cattle so shipped to the parties holding such drafts on account of the shipments. The defendants, before September 15, 1887, were accustomed to and did pay all such drafts, and had never refused payment of any of the same. The defendants had not paid to the plaintiff any part of the $6,700.

The defense set up in the answer to the amended petition was that before the shipment of the cattle the defendants advanced to Lyons more than $7,500, to be used by him to buy cattle for them, with the agreement that the cattle, when purchased, should be delivered by him to the defendants, to be sold by them on account of such advances, and that the cattle were to be delivered on board of the cars at Randall, Kan.; that the cattle in question were delivered to the defendants at Randall on board of the cars; that four cars thereof were consigned to the defendants as per the bill of lading; that no bill of lading was issued for the two cars shipped by Guthrie; that all of the cattle, at the time they were delivered to the defendants, were their property and in their possession before the bill of lading was delivered to the plaintiff; that Lyons and Guthrie accompanied the cattle from Randall to Kansas City, and remained with them while in transit; that when the cattle reached Kansas City the defendants took them from the cars with the knowledge and authority of Lyons and Guthrie, and with like knowledge and authority sold the cattle, and applied the proceeds in payment of the amount so advanced to Lyons; that the bill of lading was never indorsed to the plaintiff, and the latter had no right or authority, by virtue of its corporate power, to receive the same, or take any title to it or the property represented by it; that the defendants had no knowledge or notice that Lyons had drawn any draft on them until the cattle had been received and sold by them, and the proceeds applied as aforesaid; that the draft was not drawn with the knowledge, consent, or authority of the defendants, or any one of them; that as to the two cars of cattle, no bill of lading was issued by the railroad company, and no delivery thereof, symbolic or otherwise, was made to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff did not have possession of any of the cattle at any time; and that the defendants had no notice that the plaintiff claimed to have any interest therein or lien thereon.

The case was tried before a jury, which was directed by the court to render a verdict for the plaintiff for $6,681.55. The defendants objected and excepted to such direction, and prayed the court to submit instructions to the jury on the pleadings and evidence, which prayer the court refused, and to such refusal the defendants excepted. The verdict was rendered accordingly, and a judgment was entered thereon in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants for $6,681.55. The defend- ants made a motion for a new trial, which was denied; and then the court signed a bill of exceptions containing all the evidence offered or received on the trial. The defendants then sued out from this court a writ of error.

The evidence shows the following state of facts: Patterson owned the 98 head of cattle, which Lyons desired to buy, but he did not have the means. Lyons, in company with Patterson, applied to Bramwell, the cashier and agent of the plaintiff, to borrow from it $6,700 to pay for the cattle and the expense of their shipment, until they could be sold at Kansas City. The plaintiff, after its cashier had examined the cattle and become satisfied that they would be sufficient security, agreed to pay the purchase price of them to Patterson, on the express condition that the plaintiff should have a lien upon, and a pledge of, the cattle as its security for making...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 cases
  • Hercules Powder Co. v. State Board of Equalization of State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 16, 1949
    ... ... as a means of affording competitive prices to all customers ... within a certain ... 290] language in Means vs. Bank of Randall, 146 U.S ... 620, 13 S.Ct. 186, 36 L.Ed. 1107: "As to the ... Surety Co., 38 Wyo. 165, 265 P. 450 and Dulaney vs ... Jensen, 63 Wyo. 313, 181 P.2d 605 are cited. In the Sims ... case both parties ... ...
  • Barnum Grain Company v. Great Northern Railway Company
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1907
    ... ... First State Bank of Hampden, North Dakota, and the First ... National Bank of Minneapolis ... stamped on the bill. In the case of Means v. Bank of ... Randall, 146 U.S. 620, it is held: 1. That a bill of ... ...
  • Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York v. Spokane County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1923
    ... ... 117 Tenn. 153, 96 S.W. 1051, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 887, 119 Am ... St. Rep. 994; Means v. Bank of Randall, 146 U.S ... 620, 13 S.Ct. 186, 36 L.Ed. 1107; Goetz et al. v. Bank of ... ...
  • Merchants' Exchange Bank v. McGraw
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 19, 1896
    ... ... Dows ... v. Bank, 91 U.S. 618, 633; Means v. Bank, 146 ... U.S. 620, 627, 13 Sup.Ct. 186, 189, and authorities there ... cited; Bank v ... Co., 133 Mass. 154; Tilden v. Minor, 45 Vt ... 196; Railway Co. v. Johnston (Neb.) 63 N.W. 144, ... 146; Mershon v. Moors, 76 Wis. 502, 514, 45 N.W. 95, ... 96; Rosenbaum v. Hayes ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Standard of Review (state and Federal): a Primer
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 18-01, September 1994
    • Invalid date
    ...461 U.S. 677, 706 (1983). 112. Earnshaw v. United States, 146 U.S. 60, 68 (1892) (and cases cited therein). 113. Means v. Bank of Randall. 146 U.S. 620, 629 114. Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487, 489 (1895) (citing both Earnshaw and Means, among others, as authority for the proposition......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT