Chouteau v. Steamboat St. Anthony

• Decision Date: 31 October 1847
• Parties: CHOUTEAU & VALLE v. STEAMBOAT ST. ANTHONY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

11 Mo. 226

CHOUTEAU & VALLE

v.STEAMBOAT ST. ANTHONY.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1847.

APPEAL FROM ST. LOUIS COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

DARBY & HILL, for Appellants.

GAMBLE & BATES, for Appellee.

NAPTON, J.

This was a statutory proceeding, instituted against the Steamboat St. Anthony, for damages on a contract of affreightment made with the master. The complaint alleged in substance that the master of the steamboat St. Anthony contracted with Chouteau & Valle to carry the sum of five hundred and seventy-two dollars in money, in bank-notes of the banks of Kentucky, from St. Louis to a place called Pell's Landing, on the Ohio river, and deliver the same to William Pell;--that in pursuance of this contract, they delivered to said boat, the aforesaid sum of money, which was received and put into the hands of the clerk, sealed up in a letter addressed to Mr. William Pell, Pell's Landing, Ills. The complaint alleges further, that the said boat did not convey and deliver to the said William Pell, a part of the sum of money, to-wit.: $420. To this complaint, a demurrer was filed and sustained by the court, and the only question is upon the sufficiency of the complaint.

Since it does not appear upon what ground the demurrer was sustained, we will consider each of the objections taken by the counsel, seriatim.

The first objection made to the complaint of Chouteau & Valle is, that the contract, as stated, is without consideration--it not being averred that any freight was charged or agreed to be paid for the transportation of the money. It is proper to observe, before noticing this objection, that common-carriers may be carriers of money, as well as of goods. This, however, depends upon the usage of the trade, and where no usage to the contrary is shown, and the carrier receives the money and undertakes to deliver it, the presumption will be that such is his customary employment. The general principles on this subject are succinctly stated by Judge Story in his treatise on Bailments, for which he refers to numerous authorities. “If it is known that the carrier does not carry money, but goods only, then he will not be liable for money which is carried without his consent or sanction, and is lost. And if the master, or other agent of a carrier, ship or steamboat, is prohibited from carrying money for hire, on account of the owners, but is allowed to carry it on his own account, or if that is the course of the trade or employment, then the owner will not be responsible for the loss of any money so taken by the master for hire; and therefore, where it is the usage of the owners of steamboats on a particular line not to carry money or bank-notes for hire, if either money or bills are intrusted to the master of one of the boats by persons acquainted with the usage, the owners of the boat will not be liable for the loss, as the masters are the general agents of the owners.” Story on Bailments, § 530. Again, in § 495, Judge Story says “A common-carrier may be of money as well as of goods, and he will be bound as such for the carriage of money as well as of goods, if such is his own practice or the common usage of the business in which he is engaged.” It is also held, that bank bills are money, and as such, may be levied on under execution. 12 Johns. 220; 11 Johns. 109.

The defendants, then, being prima facie liable for the carriage of bank bills, as well as other goods, it was unnecessary for the complaint to set forth any express agreement for compensation. If the carrier be in the habit of transporting goods for hire, the agreement to pay the usual freight is implied by the delivery of the goods to him. He is authorized to charge and recover the usual or reasonable compensation, and he is liable for the loss of the goods, as though the...