Bell Storage Co. v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 13 June 1935
• Citation: 164 Va. 278
• Parties: BELL STORAGE COMPANY, INC., ET ALS. v. MRS. C. W. HARRISON.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 278

164 Va. 278

BELL STORAGE COMPANY, INC., ET ALS. v. MRS. C. W. HARRISON.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Wythebille.

June 13, 1935.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Gregory, Browning and Chinn, JJ.

1. WAREHOUSES AND WAREHOUSEMEN — Sale of Goods for Storage Charges — Sale under Section 1322 of the Code of 1930 — Estoppel — Inconsistent Positions — Election — Case at Bar. — In the instant case appellant storage company, purporting to act in accordance with section 1322 of the Code of 1930, sold at auction certain furniture belonging to appellee, for failure to pay storage charges. It then filed a bill praying that appellee and certain judgment creditors of her husband be required to interplead and settle their demands as to the balance remaining after appellant's claim for storage charges had been satisfied. Subsequent to a decree directing payment of the fund to two of the judgment creditors, appellee, who had failed to appear in the suit, filed a petition for a rehearing, claiming that the sale made by appellant was illegal and void because held less than fifteen days from the time of the first publication of the notice of sale, contrary to the provisions of section 1322 of the Code of 1930. Thereafter a final decree was entered holding the sale invalid and of no effect. The evidence showed that the sale was held less than fifteen days after the first publication of the notice of sale, but it was contended that under section 1323 of the Code of 1930, providing for the sale of perishable goods, the storage company had the right to sell the goods without any advertisement at all, because it was not shown that the goods were not perishable and the burden was on appellee to prove that they were not perishable.

Held: That the appellant company proceeded strictly in conformity with section 1322 of the Code of 1930, except as to the mandatory provision that the sale should not be held less than fifteen days from the time of the first publication of notice of the sale, and having adopted that method, the company could not now claim that it sold the goods under section 1323 of the Code of 1930, prescribing the method whereby the warehouseman may sell goods in storage which are perishable or hazardous to keep.

2. WAREHOUSES AND WAREHOUSEMEN — Estoppel of Warehouseman to Dispute Depositor's Title. — In accordance with the well-settled general rule that a bailee is estopped to deny his bailor's title, a warehouseman with whom goods have been deposited is estopped, in the absence of the intervention of a paramount title, from disputing the title of the depositor.

3. WAREHOUSES AND WAREHOUSEMEN — Deposit of Goods by Married Woman — Sale of Goods for Storage Charges — Estoppel of Warehouseman to Dispute Depositor's Title — Case at Bar. — In the instant case the appellant company, purporting to act according to section 1322 of the Code of 1930, sold certain furniture belonging to appellee, for failure to pay storage charges and then filed a bill of interpleader to require appellee and certain judgment creditors of her husband to settle among themselves their claims to the balance left after satisfying the appellant company's claim. Subsequent to a decree directing payment of the fund to certain of the creditors, appellee filed a petition for a rehearing on the ground that the sale made by the appellant company was illegal and void. A final decree was entered holding the sale invalid and of no effect and dismissing the bill of interpleader. Appellant contended that the court erred because the law presumes that the goods stored by appellee belonged to her husband and as she did not affirmatively prove to the contrary, she had no interest in the property and no right to ask for a rehearing. Appellee made the contract for the storage of the goods and the receipt from the appellant company was issued in her name as the owner of the goods.

Held: That under its contract with appellee as bailor of the goods, the warehouse company was estopped from disputing her right to assert her title thereto in proceedings contesting the validity of the sale of the goods by the warehouseman.

4. EQUITY — Bill of Interpleader — Necessity for Indifference on Part of Plaintiff. — In order to maintain a bill of interpleader it is essential that the plaintiff should be entirely indifferent between the conflicting claims to the exclusion of even an indirect interest, and this position must be one of "continuous impartiality."

5. EQUITY — When a Bill of Interpleader May Be Filed. — The equitable remedy of interpleader, independent of statute, depends upon and requires the existence of the four following elements, which may be regarded as its essential conditions: 1. The same thing, debt or duty must be claimed by both or all the parties against whom the relief is demanded; 2. All their adverse titles or claims must be dependent upon or derived from a common source; 3. The person asking the relief — the plaintiff — must not have nor claim any interest in the subject matter; 4. He must have incurred no independent liability to either of the claimants — that is, he must stand perfectly indifferent between them in the position merely of a stakeholder.

6. EQUITY — Interpleader — Interest on Part of Plaintiff — Claims of Defendants Not Dependent upon Common Source — Case at Bar. — In the instant case the appellant company, purporting to act according to section 1322 of the Code of 1930, sold certain furniture belonging to appellee for failure to pay storage charges and then filed a bill of interpleader to require appellee and certain judgment creditors of her husband, who claimed liens on the balance left after satisfying appellant's claim, to settle among themselves their claims to such balance. Subsequent to a decree directing payment of the fund to certain of the creditors, appellee filed a petition for a rehearing alleging that the appellant company's claim was excessive and that the sale was illegal and void because not made in compliance with the statute. A rehearing was granted and a final decree entered holding the sale invalid and of no effect and dismissing the bill of interpleader.

Held: That the appellant company had no right to maintain the bill of interpleader. The amount due the warehouse company by appellee was disputed and the warehouse company having made an invalid sale of her goods had incurred an independent liability by placing itself in the position of wrongdoer, and could not, therefore, stand indifferent and without interest in the controversy. Moreover the claims of defendants in the bill of interpleader were not dependent upon or derived from a common source, appellee claiming the goods as her own while the creditors claimed that the goods belonged to her husband.

Appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the city of Norfolk on a bill of interpleader. Decree for defendant. Complainants appeal.

The opinion states the case.

James E. Heath, William G. Maupin, Vincent L. Parker and Fred E. Martin, for the appellants.

J. Brooks Mapp, Tazewell Taylor and Nathaniel T. Green, for the appellee.

CHINN, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

At first November rules, 1932, Bell Storage Company, Incorporated, filed its bill in the Circuit Court for the city of Norfolk, setting forth: That it was engaged in business as a warehouseman in said city, and that on the 16th day of the preceding February, Mrs. C. W. Harrison, also known as Mrs. Ruth Ray Harrison, deposited with it a large amount of household goods and furnishings at a storage rate of $8 per month, with certain charges thereon for handling into storage and other expenses, for which complainant issued and delivered to said depositor, in the name of Mrs. C. W. Harrison, a non-negotiable warehouse receipt; that Mrs. Harrison having failed to pay said charges, complainant, acting in accordance with the provisions of chapter 57 (section 1290 et seq.) of the Code, sent her a notice by registered mail inclosing an itemized statement of its claim, stating the sum due at the time of said notice, the date or dates when it became due, a brief description of the goods against which complainant's liens existed, and demanding that the same should be paid within ten days from the time said notice should have reached its destination, and further stating that unless said charges were paid within the time specified the goods would be sold at auction on Tuesday, August 23, 1932; that said charges not having been paid, complainant had proceeded to advertise said goods for sale, and to sell the same at public auction on the day specified to the highest bidder for cash, that at said sale an amount had been realized sufficient to pay complainant's claim in full and leave a balance of $339.56 in its hands; that complainant had been notified by Wm. F. Smith and Company, the Hogshire Tent and Awning Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, and D. P. Paul and Company, Incorporated, that each of them claimed a lien upon the balance in complainant's hands, and had been warned by each of them not to pay such balance to any person other than themselves; that complainant had been threatened with legal proceedings by the above mentioned parties for payment to each of them respectively of the said balance; that complainant had no interest in the balance in its hands, and was ready to pay the same to whomsoever might be entitled to it. The bill prays that Mrs. Harrison and the above mentioned lien claimants be made parties defendant thereto; that they severally set forth to which of them the said sum of $339.56 rightfully belongs; that they may be required to interplead and settle their demands amongst themselves, and complainant be allowed to recover out of such funds the just costs of the proceedings.

Wm. F. Smith and Company, the Hogshire Tent and Awning Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, and D. P. Paul and Company, Incorporated, filed their separate answers to the bill claiming liens on...