Caroway v. Cochran
| Decision Date | 28 January 1913 |
| Parties | CAROWAY v. COCHRAN. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted February 20, 1912.
Syllabus by the Court.
A bailee of personal property for care and preservation, under an agreement which does not fix the amount of his compensation, is entitled to the reasonable value of his services, and may retain possession of the property as security therefor.
In an action of detinue by the owner to recover possession of the property, the amount in controversy is the value of the property, although the claim for compensation is set up as ground of defense and title to the property disclaimed.
An erroneous instruction given in a case in which the issue turns on conflicting evidence justifies the award of a new trial.
Error to Circuit Court, Pocahontas County.
Action by A. J. Caroway against L. S. Cochran. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
N. C McNeil and L. M. McClintic, both of Marlinton, for plaintiff in error.
F. R Hill and Price, Osenton & Horan, all of Marlinton, for defendant in error.
POFFENBARGER, P.
A. J Caroway obtained a verdict in an action of detinue against L S. Cochran for a sawmill, valued at $300, and $5 damages which the court set aside. On his writ of error, he complains of the action of the court in permitting the defendant to file a special plea and the introduction of evidence thereunder, in giving defendant's instructions Nos. 1 and 2, and setting aside the verdict.
The defense was a right of detention in the defendant as a bailee or custodian of the mill for a claim for compensation for his trouble and labor in the care thereof, amounting to $100. An effort is made here to get rid of the writ of error on the theory of lack of appellate jurisdiction. The amount in controversy, however, was the value of the property sued for. Although the defendant disclaimed any title to the mill and asserted his claim for compensation only as ground of defense, the subject-matter of the litigation was the possession of the mill. There could be no cross-action in this suit for compensation for its care. At most, that claim gave a mere right of detention, and the recovery thereon was enforceable only by judgment and execution. The $100 claim was in the case as a ground of resistance of the plaintiff's right to the mill, not as the basis of a recovery of a money demand. Hence, clearly it was not the matter in controversy.
The plea, if sustained by proof, constitutes a good defense. A bailee, without an express agreement for compensation, may undoubtedly retain possession of the subject of the bailment for his reasonable charges, in the absence of circumstances proving the service to have been gratuitous.
The mill had been placed on Cochran's land for the purpose of manufacturing lumber on an adjacent tract belonging to other parties, under a verbal license from him, in consideration of which some of his timber was to be sawed by the licensees. It was placed there by the Kittanning Lumber Company, a copartnership composed, it seems, of J. M. Straight and J. H. Painter. This firm did not own the mill. They had leased or hired it from Painter, one of the members of...
To continue reading
Request your trial