Empire Transportation Co. v. Steele

• Decision Date: 09 January 1872
• Citation: 70 Pa. 188
• Parties: The Empire Transportation Co. <I>versus</I> Steele.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 188

70 Pa. 188

The Empire Transportation Co. versus Steele.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November __, 1871.

January 9, 1872.

November __ 1871.

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW, SHARSWOOD and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Forest county: No. 1, to October and November Term 1871.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

J. R. Clark and W. E. Lathy, for plaintiffs in error, cited as to 1st assignment: 1 Greenleaf's Ev., § 558; Parks v. Dunkle, 3 W. & S. 291; Hemphill v. McClimans, 12 Harris 367.

As to 3d assignment: Angell on Carriers, § 49; Arbuckle and Thompson v. Colburn, 1 Wright 176.

M. P. Davis and S. N. Pettis, for defendant in error, cited as to 1st error, Carland v. Cunningham, 1 Wright 228; Graff v. P. & St. L. Railroad, 7 Casey 489. As to the 3d error, Angell on Carriers, §§ 495, 496, 499.

The opinion of the court was delivered, January 9th 1872, by THOMPSON, C. J.

We shall notice the third assignment of error first. It presents the most material point in the case.

Neither party has furnished us with a copy of the bills of lading in the case, and they are the instruments out of which this controversy has arisen. We must presume, therefore, that they are in the ordinary form of such instruments, without special or unusual exceptions or provisions.

A. J. Thompson, it appears, was the shipper of the oil in controversy, and shipped by the Empire Transportation Company. Bills of lading were delivered to him for the oil, which was consigned by him to one Saxton, agent, in New York, he paying freight. Thompson drew two drafts on him, which were discounted by the plaintiff's bank, and he assigned as collateral the bills of lading. If Thompson was the owner of the oil at the time, it is not to be doubted but that the assignment passed the property in the oil to the plaintiff. But if he was not, what interest in it did the assignment pass? Lord Loughborough, in Mason et al. v. Lichlarrow, 6 East 21, delivering the opinion of the Exchequer Chamber, held that the endorsement of bills of lading had never been regarded in the commercial law as resting on the footing of bills of exchange, or other strictly commercial paper; that inquiry was a duty, and consequently that the endorsee took such paper on the credit of the endorser. So is the case of Kingsford v. Merry, 11 Exch, 577. In the Mechanics' Bank v. The New Haven R. R. C., 3 Ker. 628, and in Mower v. Peabody, Id. 121, the same thing is contained, in the principle announced that as a bill of lading is a mere symbol, its delivery or negotiation produces no greater effect than would the delivery of the goods it represents, and that the right conferred by the endorsement will be limited to that which might have been exercised by the endorsee had the goods themselves been transferred instead of the bill. That principle is also recognised in Decan v. Shipper, 11 Casey 239; also in Schumacher v. Eby, 12 Harris 521. It must be remembered, that we are here speaking of the general commercial law, without reference to our factor act, or to the act approved 24th September 1866. It is well known that there being no market overt in this state, or in New York, had the oil been delivered to plaintiff in fact, he would have taken only such title as Thompson had, and any party having a right to contest that title would be authorized to show that he had none. That was what defendants...