Allen C. Driver, Inc. v. Mills

• Decision Date: 07 March 1952
• Docket Number: No. 107,107
• Citation: 199 Md. 420,86 A.2d 724
• Parties: ALLEN C. DRIVER, Inc. et al. v. MILLS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 420

199 Md. 420

86 A.2d 724

ALLEN C. DRIVER, Inc. et al. v. MILLS.

No. 107.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 7, 1952.

Joseph Whitney Shirley, Jr., Baltimore, for Allen C. Driver, inc.

Wm. D. Macmillan and Wm. A. Fisher, Jr., Baltimore (Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for Corkran, Hill and Co., Inc.

C. Edward Hartman II, Baltimore (Fell & Hartman and James C. Mitchell, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS and MARKELL, JJ.

DELAPLAINE, Judge.

This action was brought in the Superior Court of Baltimore City by Walter H. Mills, a resident of Charles County, to recover damages for the conversion of five head of his cattle. The question in the case is whether the Federal Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 181-231, which makes it the duty of every stockyard owner and market agency to furnish upon reasonable request, without discrimination, reasonable stockyard services, operates to relieve such agencies as are licensed under the Act from liability for conversion.

Plaintiff alleged that on August 23, 1950, John C. Thompson stole five head of his Hereford cattle from a field at Welcome, Maryland, and transported them to the Union Stockyards in Baltimore, where he offered them for sale. He delivered them to Allen C. Driver, Inc., a cattle dealer, for sale on commission; and on the same day a salesman for the dealer sold the cattle to Corkran, Hill & Company, Inc., a Baltimore meat packer, at 25 cents per pound. The dealer gave Thompson a check for $780.92, covering the purchase price of $790 less commission, and he cashed the check at a bank. He was subsequently convicted for the larceny of the cattle. Plaintiff brought suit against both the dealer and the purchaser.

The dealer, in its plea denying liability, alleged: (1) that it is licensed under the Packers and Stockyards Act, and it serves merely as a commission firm hendling transactions while the cattle are in the stockyards; and (2) that as a licensed commission firm it is required to serve all consignors and is not free to make a choice, and hence the Act changes commission agencies from ordinary factors to public utilities.

The purchaser, in a cross-claim against the dealer, pleaded: (1) that it paid $790 to the dealer for the cattle, and the dealer warranted that it could transfer the title by sale; and (2) that if the dealer could not transfer the title, and plaintiff should recover from the purchaser for the conversion, then the purchaser would sustain damage as a result of the breach of warranty.

The Court, sitting without a jury, found in favor of plaintiff and entered judgment for $790 against defendants, but also entered judgment in favor of Corkran, Hill & Company, Inc., against Allen C. Driver, Inc., in the cross-claim. Both defendants appealed.

It is a settled rule of the common law, founded upon a doctrine of the civil law, that a sale by a person who has no right to sell, is not effective as against the rightful owner. Thus, under the common law and the Uniform Sales Act, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to sell. Code 1939, art. 83, § 41.

Thus a factor, commonly known as a commission merchant, who receives property from his principal and sells it under his instructions and pays him the proceeds of the sale, is guilty of a conversion if the principal had no title thereto or any right to sell the property. The factor cannot escape liability to the true owner for the value of the property by claiming that he acted in good faith and in ignorance of the principal's want of title. Levi v. Booth, 58 Md. 305, 42 Am.Rep. 332.

The Packers and Stockyards Act was enacted by Congress on August 15, 1921. The term 'stockyard,' within the meaning of the Act, is any place commonly known as stockyards conducted as a public market, consisting of pens or other inclosures, in which live cattle, sheep, swine, horses, mules, or goats are received, held, or kept for sale or shipment in commerce. Sec. 202.

The Act defines the term 'market agency' as any person engaged in the business of (1) buying or selling in commerce livestock at a stockyard on a commission basis or (2) furnishing stockyard services. The term 'dealer' means any person, not a market agency, engaged in the business of buying or selling in commerce livestock at a stockyard, either on his own account or as the employee or agent of the vendor or purchaser. Sec. 201.

The particular provision of the Act which has been emphasized on this appeal is that contained in Section 205: 'It shall be the duty of every stockyard owner and market agency to furnish upon reasonable request without discrimination, reasonable stockyard services at such stockyard * * *.'

In 1922 the United States Supreme Court in Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 42 S.Ct. 397, 402, 66 L.Ed. 735, 23 A.L.R. 229, sustined the constitutionality of the Act and held that market agencies connected with stockyards are public utilities. Chief Justice Taft said in the opinion of the Court: 'The stockyards are not a place of rest or final destination. Thousands of head...