Allen v. Jacob Dold Packing Co.
Decision Date | 14 October 1920 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 45 |
Citation | 204 Ala. 652,86 So. 525 |
Parties | ALLEN v. JACOB DOLD PACKING CO. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John C. Pugh, Judge.
Action by E.P. Allen against the Jacob Dold Packing Company, begun by attachment. From a judgment for the defendant on certain counts plaintiff appeals, and from judgment for plaintiff as to certain counts defendant appeals; each party filing a cross-appeal. Transferred from court of appeals under section 6, Acts 1911, p. 450. Affirmed as to both direct and cross appeals.
Although a bailee would not be liable in trover because the bailed property was stolen, yet where the bailee's agents negligently and carelessly used bailed property in filling orders for their principal, the bailee is liable for the conversion.
The first count claims for breach of contract to lease plaintiff a storehouse from June 10, 1918, to July 1, 1924, at and for the sum of $175 per month, and that by reason of the breach of the agreement and the refusal to enter into the lease plaintiff was compelled to lease another store at and for the sum of $225 per month.
Counts 4 and 6 set up an agreement for sale of business and lease of storehouse by the Jacob Dold Packing Company, to E.P. Allen and its breach and claim damages as in count 1.
Count 5 is as follows:
Plaintiff claims of the defendant sum of $300 damages for the conversion by it on, to wit, 18th day of June, 1918, of the following chattels: 47 sides of meat, D.S. clear of bellies with packing house No. 104 on them, the property of the plaintiff. It appears that the Jacob Dold Packing Company had certain fixtures having reference to a packer's business located at a certain storehouse on which they held a lease to July 1, 1924, and that they submitted a proposition in writing to E.P. Allen to sell the fixtures and the lease for a sum certain, which proposition Allen accepted. One Stotler, alleged to be the agent of the Jacob Dold Packing Company, conducted the negotiations for the packing company and signed the various propositions and letters. It was denied by the defendant that Stotler had any such authority and they raised this question by filing a plea of non est factum, and there was evidence tending to support the plea.
The fifth count was supported by evidence that the plaintiff Allen, stored in the defendant's warehouse a carload of meat such as is described in the complaint, and that the defendant appropriated and sold 47 sides of the same.
The following is the letter of June 10, 1918:
June 10, 1918.
The following are the telegrams from the packing company to its agent, as referred to in the opinion:
Birmingham, Ala., June 6, 1918.
Wichita, Kas., June 7, 1918.
Birmingham, Ala., June 7, 1918.
Jacob Dold Packing Co., Wichita, Kas. White will give answer Monday. Offered no objection, but wants investigate before releasing us. [ [Signed] Stotler.
Wichita, Kas., June 7, 1918.
Wichita, Kas., June 12, 1918. 5:46 PM.
Buffalo, N.Y., June 13, 1918.
Wichita, Kas., June 14, 1918.
J.E. Stotler, Care Dold Pkg. Co., Birmingham, Ala. Answering message Buffalo advises under no circumstances assume any responsibility Birmingham lease after expiration present lease. If White not willing make arrangement with Allen call deal off. What rent per month is White asking Allen for the additional five years providing we don't exercise our option. Wire answer. [ Signed] F.W. Dold.
Wichita, Kans., June 6, 1918.
J.E. Stotler, Care J. Dold Pkg. Co., Birmingham, Ala. Answering relative final disposition lease and equipment Buffalo wants us to submit any offers that might received therefore wire us any proposition that you might be able to obtain we in turn will put up to Buffalo by wire they reserving right make final decision. [ Signed] W.G. Glenn.
Birmingham, Ala.
Wichita, Kans. 8:25 AM.
Birmingham, Ala. June 13, 1918.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pollard v. Pollard
... ... Davis v. Hurt, supra; Jenkins v. Holly, supra; Conner v ... Allen, 33 Ala. 515; Freeman v. Scurlock, 27 ... Ala. 407; Pope v. Union ... Rwy. v. Harris, ... 202 Ala. 263, 80 So. 101; Allen v. Jacob Dold Packing ... Co., 204 Ala. 652, 86 So. 525). Hence there was no ... ...
-
Maury v. Unruh
...and plaintiff." This averment, on demurrer, is clearly insufficient to show that Hammel was authorized to bind the plaintiff. Allen v. Jacob Dold Packing Co., supra. the averments as true, it is clear that the parties to the contract intended that the sale and purchase were of the three-fou......
-
Long v. Pittman
... ... 153; Howton v ... Mathias, 197 Ala. 457, 73 So. 92; Allen v. Jacob ... Dold Packing Co., 204 Ala. 652, 86 So. 525; Pollard ... v ... ...
- Hines v. Cabaniss