17 F.2d 413 (W.D.S.C. 1922), In re Tansill

Citation:17 F.2d 413
Party Name:In re TANSILL.
Case Date:March 21, 1922
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 413

17 F.2d 413 (W.D.S.C. 1922)


United States District Court, W.D. South Carolina.

March 21, 1922

Page 414

E. M. Blythe and Dean, Cothran & Wyche, all of Greenville, S.C., for petitioner.

B. F. Martin, of Greenville, S.C., for trustee respondent.

WATKINS, District Judge.

This matter comes before me upon petition of Woodruff Oil & Fertilizer Company to review an order of the referee whereby the claim of petitioner to the proceeds of the sale of certain bales of linters in the hands of the trustee was disallowed.

Pursuant to a voluntary petition filed on June 3, 1921, H. A. Tansill, engaged in business at Greenville, S.C., under the style of Carolina Waste Company, was on June 4, 1921, adjudged a bankrupt. For some years prior to the adjudication the bankrupt had maintained a place of business, including a warehouse or warehouses, in the city of Greenville, S.C., and in the line of his business had engaged in the purchase and sale, among other articles, of cotton linters in bales produced by cotton oil mills. Pursuant to a verbal agreement, Woodruff Oil & Fertilizer Company, beginning on February 4, 1921, and extending to and including March 4, 1921, shipped Carolina Waste Company 279 bales of linters, of which about 130 were in possession of the waste company on the date of its adjudication as a bankrupt. By agreement of the oil mill and the trustee for the bankrupt estate, these linters were, by order of the referee, sold in September, 1921; the proceeds to be held pending the determination of the controversy as to ownership. Upon the hearing the referee denied the claim of petitioner and ordered the trustee to pay over the funds arising from the sale of the linters, and amounting to $1,077.12, ratably among all the creditors of the estate.

It appears from the testimony in the case that the linters were shipped to the waste company upon the agreement that they should be stored in its warehouse, and that it would submit to the oil company offers of purchase which must be accepted upon the part of the oil company before the sale was consummated. It was the custom of the waste company to procure offers from other parties before submitting its own bid; but the amount of these offers was not made known to the oil company, nor was the compensation of the waste company fixed by commission. It became, when a sale was consummated, a purchaser in its own right, so far as the oil company was concerned. The shipper paid all transportation charges, but no charges for storage. The linters were insured by the waste company in its own name, and it is to be assumed at its own expense. Subsequent to the storing of the linters with the waste company, it contracted various debts which are still outstanding, as will appear by reference to the schedules and claims filed with the referee.

It will appear from the foregoing that the case is clearly one of bailment. Possession was delivered but title reserved in the shippers. In the case of Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co. v. Vanstory, Trustee (C.C.A.) 171 F. 375, 22 Am.Bankr.Rep. 740, Judge Pritchard, speaking for the Circuit Court of Appeals of this Circuit, and quoting from American & English Encyclopedia of Law (2d Ed.) vol. 3, p. 733, said: "Bailment is the delivery of goods for some purpose, upon a contract, express or implied, that after the purpose has been fulfilled they shall be redelivered to the bailor or otherwise dealt with according to his directions, or kept...

To continue reading