Dolliff v. Robbins

• Decision Date: 21 June 1901
• Citation: 86 N.W. 772,83 Minn. 498
• Parties: DOLLIFF v. ROBBINS et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

83 Minn. 498

86 N.W. 772

DOLLIFF

v.ROBBINS et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 21, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; J. F. McGee, Judge.

Action by Lucius P. Dolliff against Daniel M. Robbins and E. C. Warner. Judgment for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendants appeal. Affirmed on condition.

Syllabus by the Court

1. One Wallbridge was engaged in operating a public warehouse for the receipt and storage of grain, at which he received a large quantity of wheat from different persons, and issued to them therefor the usual storage receipts. Subsequently he shipped the wheat, without the knowledge or consent of the ticket holders, to defendants, who were commission merchants, and the same was sold by them, and the proceeds applied to the payment of an indebtedness due them from Wallbridge. Thereafter the ticket holders sold, indorsed, and transferred their several tickets to the plaintiff in this action, who demanded of Wallbridge and said defendants the return and possession of the wheat, which was refused. Held: (a) That the sale, indorsement, and delivery of the tickets operated as a transfer and assignment to the plaintiff of all title to the wheat, and every remedy possessed by the holders thereof, including the cause of action for its conversion. (b) Defendants, though commission merchants doing business as such, in the matter of the sale of the wheat in question, and the appropriation of the proceeds thereof to the payment of the Wallbridge indebtedness, acted in their own interests and in their own behalf, and not as mere agents of Wallbridge, the warehouseman, and are liable as for its conversion.

2. Where the conversion of personal property is accidental and under the belief that the person has the right to the property, and he acts with no wrongful purpose or intent, the measure of damages is the value of the property at the time of the actual taking and conversion. But, where the original taking and conversion is willful and without color or claim of right, the measure of damages is the value of the property at the time and in the condition it is in when damand for its return is made. Within these rules, it is held, there being nothing in the record to show a willful and wrongful conversion on the part of defendants, that the measure of plaintiff's recovery should have been limited to the value of the wheat in question at the time when plaintiff had the right to demand its return, with interest, less the storage charges and the expense of transporting the same from the warehouse to Minneapolis, where it was sold and converted. F. N. Hendrix, for appellants.

Wilson & Van Derlip, for respondent.

BROWN, J.

Action for damages for the conversion of a quantity of wheat. The cause was tried in the court below without a jury, plaintiff recovered, and defendants appeal from an order denying a new trial. The facts in the case are as follows: Between Septmber 19, 1899, and May 15, 1900, and perhaps for some time prior to the first-named date, one Wallbridge was in the possession of and operating two public warehouses for the handling and storing of grain for others, and was engaged in buying wheat and other grain on his own account, and storing the same in said warehouses. Between the dates stated he received for storage at his said elevators a large quantity of wheat from the farmers in the vicinity of the towns in which the elevators were located, for which he issued to them numerous storage tickets, evidencing the receipt of the wheat, and the kind and grade thereof. Two of the elevators so operated by Wallbridge were located, one at Belleview, in Redwood county, and one at Echo, in Yellow Medicine county. The tickets issued for the wheat so received by him were in the usual form, and in compliance with the statutes on the subject. On August 30, 1899, defendants loaned to said Wallbridge the sum of $25,000, and later on, and at different times, additional sums, aggregating in the neighborhood of $35,000. To secure the payment of this indebtedness, Wallbridge issued and delivered to defendants four certain storage receipts, purporting to be for wheat deposited by them in said elevators, though none was ever in fact so deposited by them. From time to time, between the dates aforesaid, Wallbridge shipped out of his said elevators to defendants, who are commission merchants doing business at Minneapolis, Minn., all the wheat he had received in store therein, to be sold by them, and the proceeds applied to the payment of the indebtedness due them. Defendants received said wheat, sold it, and credited the proceeds to the account of Wallbridge. The wheat so shipped to them included the wheat represented by the tickets issued and delivered to the farmers aforesaid, which are now owned by the plaintiff. Long prior to the commencement of this action, but subsequent to the shipment and delivery of the wheat to defendants, the persons to whom the storage tickets therefor were so issued by Wallbridge sold, indorsed, and delivered the same to plaintiff in this action, who has since remained, and is now, the owner thereof. On July 6, 1900, plaintiff produced and tendered to defendants the storage receipts, and demanded of them the delivery of the wheat represented thereby, which demand was refused, and this action followed. Three questions are presented in this court: (1) Whether the indorsement and delivery of the storage tickets to plaintiff operated as an assignment of the cause of action for the conversion of the wheat, and, in this immediate connection, whether plaintiff in fact owned the tickets; (2) whether defendants are liable in this action as for a conversion of the wheat; and, (3) if they are, the measure of plaintiff's damages.

1. Appellants contend that because of the fact that the wheat represented by the storage tickets held by plaintiff had been shipped out of the Wallbridge warehouses, and sold and converted by defendants, prior to the tranfer of the tickets to him, the mere indorsement and delivery of the tickets did not operate as an assignment of the cause of action for the conversion. We are unable to concur in this contention. The tickets here in question were issued by Wallbridge as a public warehouseman, and their validity, force, and effect are controlled by the general statutes of the state on the subject. By statute, such tickets are made transferable and negotiable by indorsement and delivery. They are negotiable,-not, perhaps, to the full extent of bills of exchange and promissory notes, but to the extent of transferring the title to the property to an indorsee or...