Brooke v. New York, Lake Erie, and Western R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 October 1885 |
| Docket Number | 84 |
| Parties | Brooke et al. v. New York, Lake Erie, and Western R.R. Co |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
January 28, 1885
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, of Philadelphia county Of July Term 1884, No. 84.
Case stated, wherein Nathan Brooke and James H. Harper, trading as Brooke & Harper, to the use of said Brooke and Edward H Pugh, trading as Brooke & Pugh, were plaintiffs, and the New York, Lake Erie, and Western R.R. Co., were defendants.
The following facts appeared from the case stated: The plaintiffs, Brooke & Harper, were grain commission merchants in Philadelphia, prior to February 1st, 1881, on which day the firm was dissolved, Harper retiring, and Brooke being the liquidating partner. Brooke continued the business, and associated with him in partnership Edward H. Pugh, trading as Brooke & Pugh. The firm of Brooke & Pugh succeeded to the business plant of Brooke & Harper, and to the assets thereof and assumed the liabilities of said firm, and continued business in the same place.
The defendant corporation, in February, 1881, was a common carrier for hire, duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, and acting as such, its shipping clerk one P. J. Weiss, at Batavia, N.Y., executed and delivered to one F. C. Williams, of Batavia, N.Y., several bills of lading (hereinafter mentioned), acknowledging to have received from the said F. C. Williams certain quantities of barley, contained in certain cars, and to be carried by said defendant from Batavia to Philadelphia, and there to be delivered to said plaintiffs, Brooke & Harper; the freight on said barley to be paid by plaintiffs. Said consignments of barley by said Williams to the plaintiffs were made that plaintiffs might sell the barley for the account of said Williams, and return him the net proceeds thereof; when the barley was consigned to Brooke & Harper, that firm had just dissolved, and been succeeded, as before stated, by the said firm of Brooke & Pugh, which received the said consignment, made advances thereon, and rendered an account of sales from time to time. All of said consignments were duly received by said plaintiffs but one car, No. 3967, the bill of lading for which was sent to plaintiffs, signed by P. J. Weiss. The contents of car No. 3967 were never delivered by defendants, though bill of lading for same was duly presented by plaintiffs and the contents demanded.
A summary of all the charges and credits on all the consignments received by plaintiffs from said Williams up to May 31st, 1881, is as follows:
To balance due Brooke & Pugh
on the whole amount
$300 39
By fraudulent collusion of the said F. C. Williams and the shipping clerk of the defendant at Batavia, the said P. J. Weiss, the bill of lading dated February 15th, 1881, for the contents of the said car No. 3967, was given by the said P. J. Weiss to the said F. C. Williams, when in fact the alleged contents of the said car No. 3967 were never received by the said Weiss or the defendant from the said F. C. Williams, as stated in said bill of lading. Of this, however, the plaintiffs had no knowledge until after the declaration was filed in this suit.
While the said P. J. Weiss, the shipping clerk of the defendant, was duly authorized to issue bills of lading for goods actually received, he had no authority whatever to issue such bills of lading without receiving the goods therein mentioned, nor had the defendant ever done or said anything to lead any one to suppose that they had authorized the said Weiss to issue bills of lading without receiving the goods therein mentioned.
None of the bills of lading stated the number of bushels in any car, but each bill of lading was for a "car of barley in bulk," and specified the number of the car. That the quantity actually delivered to plaintiffs was ascertained by measurement, and accounted for by plaintiffs to Williams as above set forth; but the said car No. 3967, covered by bill of lading dated February 15th, 1881, never having been received by plaintiffs, its contents are estimated at 501 2/48 bushels of barley, by reference to the contents of the same car received by plaintiffs on a former shipment of February 9th, 1881, when the contents of said car No. 3967 amounted by actual measurement to 501 2/48 bushels. It was submitted to the Court whether or not this estimate is a legal and proper one under the circumstances.
It was agreed that all the statutes and decisions of the Courts in the State of New York, so far as applicable, should form part of this case stated, and that extracts from and reference to the same should be annexed, and treated as though written at length herein, subject to the objection of the defendant that the same are irrelevant.
If, upon the above state of facts, without regard to the form of action and form of the pleadings, the Court should be of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the defendant the amount of the loss sustained by them upon their account with F. C. Williams, by reason of his overdraft upon them, or by reason of the non-delivery by the defendant of the contents of car No. 3967, as stated in their bill of lading, then judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs for the sum of $300.39, with interest from May 31st, 1881 (being the balance actually due the plaintiffs on the whole account); or, if the Court be of opinion that the defendant has a right to require the plaintiffs to appropriate the proceeds of the contents of car No. 14,341 to the deficiency occasioned by the non-delivery of the contents of car No. 3967, as called for in the bill of lading; or that the defendant could recover the value of the said proceeds in a proper form of action against the plaintiffs, then judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs for the sum of $105.61, with interest from May 31, 1881, being the difference between the deficiency on the shipment covering the missing car, to wit, $338.52, and the car 14,341, to wit: $232.91.
But if the Court should be of opinion that the defendant is not liable at all, on the above state of facts, then judgment to be entered for defendant.
The following was appended to the case stated.
POINTS DECIDED BY THE COURTS OF NEW YORK.
A common carrier who signs a bill of lading for more goods than are shipped by the consignor, and has paid the consignee for the deficiency, may recover the amount from the consignor: Graves v. Harwood, 9 Barb., 477.
If the agent of the carrier issue a bill of lading for goods not received, and a third person in good faith advances money on the bill of lading, the carrier is liable to make good his loss.
"Street (the agent) having power to issue bills direct to consignees, for goods actually in the possession of the defendant, and the present bills being in no way distinguishable in form from those which were usually employed, he must be considered as having the necessary authority as to the plaintiffs acting in good faith:" Armour et al. v. The Michigan Central R.R. Co., 65 N.Y. 111.
If the carrier issue a bill of lading to a person who has no title to the property, whereby the latter is enabled to obtain an advance thereon, the carrier is liable in damages to the person so defrauded: Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank v. The Erie R.R. Co., 72 N.Y. 188.
A bona fide purchaser of a chose in action, not negotiable, from one on whom the owner has conferred the apparent ownership, obtains a valid title as against such owner, although his vendor had not such title: Moore v. The Metropolitan National Bank, 55 N.Y. 41: McNeil v. The Tenth National Bank, 46 Id., 325.
Where the bill of lading is drawn directly to the consignee, and not to the order of the consignor, the right of action of the consignee against the carrier is not derived through the consignor, but rests upon the direct relations between the consignee and the carrier established by the bill of lading: Armour v. The Michigan Central R.R. Co., 65 N.Y. 120-123.
When a bill of lading requires the delivery of the goods to a named consignee, no action can be maintained by the consignor against the carrier without the consent of the consignee: Shepard v. Heineken, 2 Sw., 525.
A carrier is discharged from liability by a delivery to the person to whose care the goods are directed, though such person be the carrier's agent: Bristol v. Renssellaer and Saratoga R.R. Co., 9 Barb., 158; Platt v. Wells, 2 Rob., 101; S.C., 26 How. Pr., 442.
Any delivery which discharges the carrier, as between him and the consignee, is good as against the consignor. In the absence of notice to the contrary, the carrier is authorized to treat the consignee as entitled to control the manner of delivery: Sweet v. Barney, 23 N.Y. 335; S.C., 24 Barb., 533; O'Dougherty v. Boston & Worcester R.R. Co., 1 S.C., 477.
EXTRACTS FROM REVISED STATUTES OF NEW YORK. Vol. 3, pages 2259 and 2260.
Law of 1858. Chapter 326. An Act to prevent the issue of false receipts and to punish fraudulent transfers of property by warehousemen, wharfingers and others.
Section 5. No master, owner, or agent of any vessel or boat of any description, or officer or agent of any railroad company or other person, shall sign or give any bill of lading, receipt,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waldron v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
...for the purpose of his special agency, viz., the supervision of compensation claims. See Brooke v. New York, Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 108 Pa. 529, 540, 1 A. 206, 56 Am.Rep. 235, where it was said in this connection that "The question is, nevertheless, primarily one of facts and circum......
-
Brooke v. N.Y., L. E. & W. R. R.
... 1 A. 206108 Pa. St. 529 BROOKE and another v. NEW YORK, L. E. & W. R. R.1 SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Filed October 5, 1885. 1 A. 206 Error to court of common pleas, Philadelphia county. In the case stated, submitted for the opinion of the court below, the following facts appear: The pl......
-
Brooke v. N. Y., Lake Erie and West. R. R. Co.
... 108 Pa. 529 Brooke et al. versus New York, Lake Erie, and Western R. R. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. January 28, 1885. October 5, 1885. Page 530 January 28th, 1885. Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK JJ. ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas No. 2, of P......