Adamson v. Frazier

• Decision Date: 09 December 1901
• Citation: 40 Or. 273,66 P. 810
• Parties: ADAMSON v. FRAZIER, Sheriff, et al.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

66 P. 810

40 Or. 273

ADAMSON v. FRAZIER, Sheriff, et al.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 9, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Multnomah county; Jno. B. Cleland, Judge.

Action by Robert Adamson against William Frazier, as sheriff of Multnomah county, Or., and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The plaintiff is a wharfinger and warehouseman, of Greenwich Wharf and Warehouse, in the city of Portland. At divers and sundry times prior to April 12, 1899, he received on storage as such warehouseman various lots and quantities of grain for the account of J.R. Cameron & Co., to whom he issued and delivered negotiable warehouse receipts for all but 764 sacks of the grain so received. On April 12th the defendant Wells Fargo & Co. caused a garnishment to be served on the plaintiff in an action brought by it against Cameron & Co. and in answer thereto the plaintiff furnished the sheriff a certificate, of which the following is a copy: "For return to the garnishment served upon me as wharfinger of Greenwich Wharf and Warehouse, No. 1, on April 12, 1899, in the suit of Wells, Fargo & Co. v. J.R. Cameron & Co., I state that I have no moneys in my possession belonging to J.R Cameron or J.R. Cameron & Co. There is in my possession as such wharfinger the following property, which had been received by me as such wharfinger on various dates and times prior to the service upon me of such garnishment, and for the account of J.R. Cameron & Co.: 33,118 sacks of wheat, of various grades and qualities, against which such wheat I had previous thereto issued for the account of J.R. Cameron & Co. negotiable warehouse receipts for 21,505 sacks of wheat, and also for 23,549 bushels of wheat; also 3,800 sacks of barley against which I had previous thereto issued for the account of J.R. Cameron & Co. negotiable warehouse receipts for 3,800 sacks of barley. All of such wheat and barley is subject to warehouse and storage charges." A few days later he made an amended certificate, for the purpose of correcting an error in the original as to the quantity of wheat. Prior to the garnishment, although unknown to the plaintiff, Cameron & Co. had sold and transferred the wheat receipts, for value, to bona fide purchasers, who a short time thereafter presented them and demanded possession of the grain, which was delivered accordingly. Wells, Fargo & Co. subsequently recovered judgment in the action against Cameron & Co., and an order for the sale of the attached property. An execution having been issued thereon, the sheriff advertised for sale, as the property of Cameron & Co., and on storage with the plaintiff, the quantity of wheat mentioned in his certificate, whereupon this suit was commenced to determine the conflicting claims of the defendants Wells, Fargo & Co. and Mariner to 503 sacks of the wheat for which receipts had not been issued, and to enjoin the sheriff from selling or attempting to sell any grain for which receipts had been issued. By stipulation of the parties, Mariner was allowed the 503 sacks, and the suit was dismissed as to him. The court below held that the attachment operated and took effect only upon the remainder of the grain for which receipts had not been issued, and entered a decree accordingly, from which the defendant Wells, Fargo & Co. appeals.

H.G. Platt, for appellants.

Geo. H. Williams and Couch Flanders, for respondent.

BEAN C.J. (after stating the facts).

The warehouse receipts for the grain stored with plaintiff on account of Cameron & Co. stood for and represented the property, and their transfer was a valid transfer of the commodity itself, so that at the time of the attachment Cameron & Co. did not own the wheat covered by the receipts, and had no attachable interest therein. Hill's Ann.Laws Or. § 4201 et seq.; State v. Koshland, 25 Or. 178, 35 P. 32; Anderson v. Mills Co., 37 Or 483, 60 P. 839, 50 L.R.A. 235. It is contended, however, that the judgment in the action brought by Wells, Fargo & Co. is a conclusive determination, as against the plaintiff, of the quantity of grain in his possession belonging to Cameron & Co. at...