Davis v. Tribune Job-Printing Co.

• Decision Date: 10 November 1897
• Docket Number: Nos. 10,932-(96).,s. 10,932-(96).
• Citation: 70 Minn. 95
• Parties: EDWARD D. DAVIS v. TRIBUNE JOB-PRINTING COMPANY.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 95

70 Minn. 95

EDWARD D. DAVIS v. TRIBUNE JOB-PRINTING COMPANY.¹

Nos. 10,932-(96).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 10, 1897.

Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Russell, J., denying a motion for a new trial after verdict for plaintiff for $543.75. Affirmed.

F. B. Hart, for appellant.

Shaw, Cray, Lancaster & Parker, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

For many years the defendant has been running a job-printing establishment at Minneapolis. In September, 1892, plaintiff published what is called a "Grain-Table Book," consisting of 223 or 224 pages. The defendant printed and bound for him the first edition of this book, and for that purpose procured for him, and at his cost, a set of copper-faced electrotyped plates on which the edition was printed. The plates remained at the printing establishment of the defendant until March, 1893, when plaintiff ordered a second edition of the book, which defendant printed and bound for him. In October, 1895, plaintiff requested defendant to state the price for which it would publish a third edition of the book. In the negotiations which followed, it developed that the plates could not be found. Plaintiff claimed that he permitted them to remain at the printing establishment since the second edition was printed, and defendant's officers claimed that they did not know or recollect whether he did or not. This action is brought for the conversion of the plates. Plaintiff had a verdict, and from an order denying a new trial the defendant appeals.

One of the questions raised on this appeal is whether, on the evidence, defendant was merely a gratuitous bailee, liable only for gross negligence, or whether the bailment was for the benefit of both parties, so that defendant was liable for want of ordinary care. After the first edition was printed, the plates were packed in wooden boxes made specially for the purpose. Plaintiff testified that after they were so packed he had a conversation with Mr. Mitchell, the president of the defendant corporation, as follows:

"I remember of asking Mr. Mitchell what I should do with those plates, and he said to me that he had a place for them, and that I better leave them there; and he took me into a room at that time, — took me into a room. As I remember, it was a long, narrow room, and in one end of it there was a number of boxes of plates, — I should say 20 or 30, or more, perhaps, of boxes of plates. And he said he was in the habit of keeping them there for parties who had books or other matter printed there; that he would like to keep them for me, because it gave him a first chance on other work that he might get; that, if they were at his place, he would stand the best chance of getting other work from them. And he said the only objection or the only risk that I would have to run would be in the matter of insurance. He said he didn't have any vault to put them in, but he said otherwise they were perfectly safe there."

The court charged the jury that, if they found this testimony of plaintiff to be true, it was incumbent upon the defendant to exercise ordinary care in caring for the plates. This is assigned as error.

Conceding, without deciding, that the benefit which defendant might derive from having the plates remain with...