Erie & Pacific Dispatch v. St. Louis Cotton Compress Co.

Decision Date11 June 1878
Citation6 Mo.App. 172
PartiesERIE AND PACIFIC DISPATCH, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COTTON COMPRESS COMPANY ET AL., Respondents.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Warehouse-receipts made payable to bearer are not negotiable. They are made negotiable only by written indorsement and delivery.

APPEAL from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Reversed, and judgment.

PHILLIPS & STEWART and D. W. PAUL, for appellant, cited: Burton v. Curyea, 45 Ill. 327; Buffington v. Curtis, 15 Mass. 502; Bailey v. Smock, 61 Mo. 213; Lowenstein v. Knopf, 2 Mo. App. 159.

EDWARD CUNNINGHAM, JR., for respondents, cited: Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110; Goodman v. Harvey, 4 Ad. & E. 870; Hotchkiss v. National Bank, 21 Wall. 354; Hamilton v. Marks, 63 Mo. 167.

BAKEWELL, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was begun before a justice of the peace, under the statute regarding claim of specific personal property. The property in dispute is two bales of cotton. These were delivered to plaintiff on its bond; and judgment before the justice was for plaintiff.

On trial anew in the Circuit Court, the cause was tried without a jury, and there was a verdict and judgment in favor of defendant Squires, who alone had appealed from the justice. From this judgment plaintiff appeals.

There is no controversy whatever about the facts, which, so far as material, are as follows:--

Plaintiff is a common carrier. Defendant, the Cotton Compress Company, is engaged in the warehouse business. Green & Moss, of St. Louis, employed the plaintiff to carry for them to Belgium three hundred and twenty-three bales of cotton then in the warehouse of the Cotton Compress Company, and for which it had issued three hundred and twenty-three warehouse-receipts,--one receipt for each bale. These receipts Green & Moss delivered to plaintiff, and plaintiff delivered three hundred and twenty-one of the receipts to the Compress Company and received the corresponding bales. Two bales were not delivered, and the receipts for them were retained by plaintiff.

The receipts were what are commonly called “cottonnotes,” and were regular warehouse-receipts deliverable to bearer. They were not indorsed. Whilst plaintiff was waiting until the Compress Company should find and identify the two bales not delivered, a clerk of plaintiff stole these two warehouse-receipts from the possession of plaintiff, and took them to defendant Squires, requesting Squires to lend him some money upon them. Squires took the receipts to the Compress Company and asked if they were good. He was told that they were; that the cotton was there, and the receipts represented ““shorts of Green & Mason.” Squires then lent to the thief, on the pledge of these two warehouse-receipts, $61. It does not appear that Squires suspected that the warehouse-receipts were stolen, or that he knew that the person borrowing the money was in the employ of plaintiff. He made no further inquiries.

Both plaintiff and Squires demanded the cotton of defendant. In the justice's court, Squires was made codefendant on motion of the Compress Company.

1. It is manifest on this state of facts that Squires acquired no title to this cotton by the delivery of these warehouse-receipts, unless these receipts were made negotiable by statute in this State. The transfer of a warehouse-receipt, in the absence of some statutory provisions giving them a negotiable character, can convey to the transferee no greater rights than would be acquired by the transfer of the goods themselves of which the receipts are the symbol. The pledgor in this case could not give a valid pledge of the goods themselves, because he did not own and had no authority to pledge them.

It is, however, contended that these warehouse-receipts were negotiable as inland bills of exchange under our law.

The statute provides (Wag. Stats. 220, sects. 6, 7) that “all receipts issued or given by any warehouse, or other person or firm, and all bills of lading * * * issued or given by any person * * * for goods, * * * shall be and are hereby made negotiable by written indorsement thereon, and delivery, in the same manner as bills of exchange and promissory notes;” and (sect. 7) “warehouse-receipts * * * may...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Allen v. St Louis Nat Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 10, 1887
    ...of the goods which they represent. Rice v. Cutler, 17 Wis. 351, 358, 359; Hirschorn v. Canney, 98 Mass. 149; Erie & Pacific Dispatch v. St. Louis Cotton Comp. Co., 6 Mo. App. 172; Fourth Nat. Bank v. St. Louis Cotton Comp. Co., 11 Mo. App. 333. The decision in Price v. Wisconsin, etc., Ins.......
  • Masonic Aid Ass'n. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1891
  • St. Louis Nat'l Bank v. Ross
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 7, 1880
    ...4 Mo. App. 452. SILAS B. JONES, for the respondent: Goods may be assigned by the delivery of the warehouse receipt.-- Erie, etc., Dispatch v. Compress Co., 6 Mo. App. 172; Rice v. Cutter, 17 Wis. 351; Skilling v. Bollman, 6 Mo. App. 76. Where the payee of a negotiable promissory note, payab......
  • Masonic Aid Ass'n v. Taylor
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1891

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT