Conner v. Aalco Moving & Storage Co.

• Decision Date: 25 March 1949
• Docket Number: No. 27575.,27575.
• Citation: 218 S.W.2d 830
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Parties: CONNER v. AALCO MOVING & STORAGE CO.

218 S.W.2d 830

CONNER v. AALCO MOVING & STORAGE CO.

No. 27575.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

March 25, 1949.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William L. Mason, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action by Mrs. Ernestine Conner against Aalco Moving and Storage Company for value of allegedly missing and damaged articles stored by plaintiff in defendant's warehouse. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Franklin E. Reagan, Adolph K. Schwartz and Sievers & Reagan, all of St. Louis, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

HUGHES, Judge.

This is an action by plaintiff for the value of household goods and tableware alleged to have been totally lost and for alleged damages to other household goods while stored in the defendant's warehouse. Plaintiff recovered a judgment, in a trial before the judge and a jury, in the sum of $375, and defendant appeals.

The defendant is a licensed warehouseman and conducts a storage business for hire. Plaintiff stored her household goods with defendant on November 14, 1944, except three articles which were stored on May 22, 1947. All storage charges were paid by plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that upon redelivery of the goods on August 15, 1947, several articles were missing and several other articles had been damaged.

The law is well settled that the obligation of the warehouseman is to exercise ordinary care to protect the property entrusted to him; that is, to use such care and diligence looking to its safety as ordinarily prudent persons in that business are accustomed to exercise toward such property. Berger v. St. Louis Storage & Commission Co., 136 Mo.App. 36, 116 S.W. 444. And where a person shows delivery of property to another for storage for hire and failure to return the same upon demand, a prima facie case of negligence is established. American Brewing Ass'n v. Talbot, 141 Mo. 674, 42 S.W. 679, 64 Am. St.Rep. 538. The warehouseman is a bailee, Berger v. St. Louis Storage & Commission Co., supra, and a prima facie right to judgment is established by the owner of the property bailed proving the bailment, his own performance of the contract, a demand for the return of the property, a failure or refusal of the bailee to return it, and its value. Dixon v. McDonnell, 92 Mo. App. 479; Collier v. Langan & Taylor Storage & Moving Co., 147 Mo.App. 700, 127 S.W. 435; Oliver Cadillac Co. v. Rosenberg, Mo.App., 179 S.W.2d 476.

It appears from plaintiff's evidence that the following articles were never returned to her: a Limoges tea set for which she paid $50 in 1936; a Limoges dinner set for which she paid $125 in 1937; a bow-end bedstead for which she paid $55 in 1940; a camel's hair broom for which she paid $2.75, date not shown, and a garden hose for which she paid $4.75, date not shown. Thus the total cost price of the above articles which were not returned was $237.50. Other articles were mentioned as not having been returned, but no value was placed on them.

Plaintiff's evidence further shows that the articles stored on May 22, 1947, were returned but in a damaged condition. These articles were: a dragon-head mahogany love-seat, a mahogany chair, and a mahogany settee. She testified that she paid $90.39 to have these articles repaired.

Ordinarily the correct measure of damages for injury to personal property is the difference in value of the property immediately before and immediately after the injury. The time of the damage or loss of goods placed in storage would be the date they were redelivered to the owner or that redelivery was demanded, which in this case was August 15, 1947. The only proof that plaintiff tendered as to the value of the goods not returned was her testimony as to what she paid for the goods several years before, except that as to the broom and garden hose for which she gave the cost price without fixing the date of purchase. It is true that such testimony was given without objection until after she had given the testimony, when an objection was made and was properly overruled because coming too late; and while such testimony if objected to would have been erroneous unless followed by showing that such cost price was the reasonable value at the time of purchase and remained the reasonable value until the date it should have been redelivered, no objection having been made at the time the testimony was given, it was not reversible error. But it afforded the triers of fact no basis by which to fix the reasonable value of such goods on August 15, 1947. The jury would have to guess or speculate as to the fair reasonable value of these goods at the time plaintiff demanded their return to her. Then as to the goods damaged, there was no testimony as to their reasonable value immediately before the damage and immediately after the damage, or at any other time, but plaintiff sought to prove the damage by showing that she...