Beacon Motorcar Co. v. Shadman

• Decision Date: 25 May 1917
• Citation: 226 Mass. 570,116 N.E. 559
• Parties: BEACON MOTORCAR CO. v. SHADMAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

226 Mass. 570

116 N.E. 559

BEACON MOTORCAR CO.

v.SHADMAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1917.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.

Action by the Beacon Motorcar Company against Grace D. Shadman. There was verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions sustained.G. W. Anderson, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Thos. W. Proctor and Wm. Frye White, both of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

It appears that this action was brought after a verdict against the plaintiff under a former corporate name in Doyle v. Peerless Motorcar Co., 116 N. E. 257. And having been held liable to the owner Doyle for the conversion of a motorcar through misdelivery either to his chauffeur, or to the defendant his daughter, it now seeks damages for the wrong alleged to have been suffered solely through her unauthorized acts. The jury would have been warranted on her evidence in finding that the written order she gave was for the sole purpose of enabling the chauffeur to obtain the car for her own use without having any express or implied authority from her father to ask for its delivery, and on the evidence of the plaintiff's former ‘garage foreman,’ that the car was delivered ‘on the strength of the order.’ It is not clear on what ground the plaintiff excepted to the introduction in evidence of the correspondence between Doyle and the company; for in the absence of this evidence there is no proof of the bailment under which the jury could find that the company had possession of the car for the purpose of making alterations or repairs when the details had been agreed upon by the parties.

[1] The plaintiff as a mere volunteer or intermediary had no cause of action, and the evidence not only was competent, but justified a finding that the plaintiff held the car subject to the express or implied orders of the owner.

[3] The delivery to the defendant accordingly was a conversion for which it was liable in damages. Doyle v. Peerless Motor Car Co., ante.

[4] By reason of this liability coupled with possession, it had a special property in the car sufficient to support the present action. Way v. Davidson, 12 Gray, 465, 74 Am. Dec. 604;Brewster v. Warner, 136 Mass. 57, 49 Am. Rep. 5;Fingold v. Schacter, 223 Mass. 274, 111 N. E. 903. And the defendant's first request that on all the evidence the plaintiff could not recover was denied rightly. The other requests, and exceptions to the exclusion of evidence, need not be considered as the questions raised or some of them may become immaterial or inapplicable at the new trial which must be granted, because of erroneous instructions to which the defendant duly excepted.

It was within the discretion of the judge whether the defendant should be permitted to withdraw the original answer, and his ruling that it must stand, and that the ‘substitute answer’ should be allowed as an amendment only, are not subject to exception. R. L. c. 173, § 48. Howe v. Pierson, 12 Gray, 26. The case went to the jury solely on the third count of the declaration, which in substance is nothing more than a count in trover alleging a wrongful conversion by the defendant. Iasigi v. Shea, 148 Mass. 538, 539, 20 N. E. 110.

The original answer and the amendment however contained a general denial which put in issue the allegations of the third count, and thereupon the special averments in answer to the second count were neither evidentiary statements against her interest, nor admissions by which she was bound, as the jury were incorrectly instructed. R. L. c. 173, § 85. Walcott v. Kimball, 13 Allen,...