Abasi Bros. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 June 1917 |
| Citation | 115 Miss. 149,75 So. 756 |
| Parties | ABASI BROS. v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. ET AL |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
March 1917
APPEAL from the circuit court of Harrison county, HON. J. H NEVILLE, Judge.
Suit by Abasi Bros., against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Judgment reversed and remanded.
Mize & Mize, for appellant.
White & Ford and B. E. Eaton, for appellee.
Abasi Bros., the appellants, are junk dealers in the city of Gulfport, Miss., and delivered to the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company sixteen barrels of scrap copper, brass, aluminum, and zinc for shipment to Buffalo, N. Y. The goods were received and receipted for by the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and started on the journey to Buffalo, N. Y. One W. T. Stewart, connected with the Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company, and the Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Company, through some arrangement with the officials of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, had this junk returned to Gulfport and consigned to W. T. Stewart, care of Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company. When this junk reached Gulfport on its return journey, the Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Company sued out a writ of replevin making Abasi Bros., the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, and W. T. Stewart defendants, claiming that said Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Company was the owner of said property. The sheriff took possession of the property, making the return of seizure of said property, but left it in the custody of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company. Abasi Bros., within the time allowed by law, gave bond as required by law for the forthcoming of the property to await and abide by the said judgment of the circuit court in the said replevin suit, and the sheriff phoned to the depot agent of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and informed him that Abasi Bros., had given the bond and that the property seized should be released; but instead of the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company delivering the property to Abasi Bros., who had given the bond as above stated, the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company delivered it to the manager of the Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Company, who receipted for it in the name of W. T. Stewart; but W. T. Stewart did not sign the receipt for the goods, and when the Abasi Bros., called for the property in question the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company refused to give it to them, having delivered it to the Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Company as above stated. Abasi Bros., thereupon filed a suit against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company in the circuit court of Harrison county for a conversion of the property delivered to it and for which it had given bond as above stated. The Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company was also made a defendant to this suit. The Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company defended this suit upon the ground that Abasi Bros., were not the owners of the property and that it had delivered it to the true owners; it being contended that the property was stolen property, having been stolen from the Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Company by divers parties and sold to Abasi Bros.
Abasi Bros., testified that they bought the property from various parties, and kept a list of the names of the parties; the books containing the names of the several parties and the amounts bought from each being introduced in evidence. For the defendant, the manager and employees of the Gulfport & Mississippi Coast Traction Company testified that the Gulfport & Mississippi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
H. & C. Newman, Inc. v. Delta Grocery & Cotton Co.
...on the part of appellants in receiving the money. The cases on conversion by sale where the purchaser was held liable include: 115 Miss. 149, 172; 112 Miss. 77; 106 489; 61 Miss. 150. These are readily distinguishable, from the case at bar. In all of these cases, the plaintiff had a lien on......