8 F.2d 372 (E.D.Va. 1925), Cincinnati Northern R. Co. v. Beveridge

Citation:8 F.2d 372
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Page 372

8 F.2d 372 (E.D.Va. 1925)




United States District Court, E.D. Virginia.

April Term, 1925

Leake, Leake & Spicer, of Richmond, Va., for plaintiff.

Robert H. Talley and J. Randolph Tucker, both of Richmond, Va., for defendants.

GRONER, District Judge.

This is an action brought by the Cincinnati Northern Railroad Company, a corporation of Ohio, against S. T. Beveridge & Co. and Aubrey Hawkins, of Richmond, Va. The purpose of the action is to recover $135.91 transportation charges on a car of baled hay shipped on or about December 20, 1921, by the D. O. Cross Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio, to its own order at Richmond, Va., notify Aubrey Hawkins. By proper stipulation a jury trail was waived and the whole question of law and fact submitted to the court.

The Cross Company was on the railroad company's credit list, and at the time of the shipment received from the railroad company, in duplicate, a prepaid bill of lading. Subsequently, on January 4th, it delivered its bank check to the railroad company for the amount of the freight, but this was later returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. In the meantime the Cross Company had drawn a draft on Hawkins, a commission merchant at Richmond, attaching a copy of the prepaid bill of lading to the draft, with instructions to Hawkins to 'handle in the usual manner for our account. ' Hawkins sold the hay to Beveridge & Co. on December 30th, and received a certified check for the purchase price, paid the draft and delivered the bill of lading to the railroad company, together with an order authorizing the delivery of the hay to Beveridge & co., who duly received the same from the railroad company on or about December 31st. The dishonored check given by the Cross Company has never been made good, nor the transportation charges paid, and the single question is whether the railroad company is now entitled to collect the same from Hawkins and Beveridge, or either of them.

From what has been already said, it will be observed that neither of the defendants was either consignor or consignee of the shipment in question, and that, while Hawkins surrendered the bill of lading, Beveridge actually received delivery. The position of the railroad company is that, notwithstanding the representation made by it to the effect that the transportation charges had been paid in full, the person receiving the freight is not relieved from liability to

Page 373

pay the same where it subsequently develops that the representation so made was...

To continue reading