Farmers' Ginnery & Mfg. Co. v. Thrasher
| Decision Date | 18 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | 212. |
| Parties | FARMERS' GINNERY & MFG. CO. v. THRASHER ET AL. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
If a warehouse company put up in conspicuous places at and around its warehouse printed posters or notices, signed by it, to the effect that all cotton stored with it would be insured for its full value as against loss by fire for 30 days after such time as the cotton entered the warehouse, for the charge of 50 cents per bale, which charge was to cover insurance and other warehouse charges, this constituted an offer to contract, and a contract resulted between the warehouse company and such persons as had knowledge thereof and acted upon it in storing cotton.
(a) If any of the plaintiffs saw and read such notices, and acted upon them in storing cotton with the warehouse company, and suffered loss from fire by reason of the failure of the company to insure the cotton for its full value, the company would be liable to such persons for the full value of the cotton so destroyed, less legitimate charges.
(b) It was conceded by the plaintiffs that a credit should be allowed on account of a payment made to each of them from the distribution of a fund arising from a policy of insurance of a certain amount which had been taken by the company, and from salvage after the fire.
If a general custom existed on the part of the warehouses in a certain municipality to insure to its full value the cotton of patrons stored with them with the necessary characteristics, patrons who stored cotton with one of such warehousemen, knowing of the custom, and relying upon it, can assert a duty on the part of such warehouseman to so insure his cotton.
It is not necessary that a witness should be a warehouseman in order to have sufficient knowledge to render him competent to testify as to the existence of such usage or custom among the warehouses of a particular town or city. If a person has been accustomed to deal with such warehouses, and to deposit cotton with them, so as to know their usage or custom on that subject, he is competent to testify as to it.
(a) Such witnesses cannot testify as matter of opinion in regard to the law, or give an opinion as to the effect of such a custom or usage; but they may testify as to the existence of such custom or usage as a matter of fact.
If a warehouse company placed an agent in charge of its warehouse for the purpose of dealing with the public, and as such he had authority to receive, weigh, and give receipts for cotton, making a charge of 50 cents for 30 days, which other evidence showed included a charge for insurance, his statements in connection with the discharge of his duties to the effect that cotton deposited would be insured, were admissible in evidence against the company; and his agreements, within the scope of his authority, would bind the company.
(a) A director is not, by virtue of that position alone, authorized to make admissions or contracts for the company.
(b) Nor would evidence merely that he was secretary of the company authorize the introduction of such contracts or admissions as to insuring cotton, unless made in the scope of his employment.
A warehouse receipt stated that the warehouseman received from a named person a stated number of bales of cotton "Marks, Nos., etc., as per margin, deliverable to this receipt, or its duplicate, by paying customary charges and all advances and indebtedness (acts of Providence and fire excepted)." On the left-hand margin were blanks for the marks and certain charges such as ginning, storage, weighing insurance, reweighing, drayage, bagging, and ties. Held, that the words, "acts of Providence and fire excepted," did not constitute such an express contract as prevented the introduction of evidence to show that there was a custom of the trade, in the municipality where the warehouse was located, for warehousemen to insure for its full value cotton placed on storage with them, along with evidence showing that a charge for the insurance was made.
While some of the numerous exceptions to the auditor's report may have been sustainable, none of them were of such a character as to require a reversal. On the case as a whole there was no reversible error on the part of the judge, to whom it was submitted without a jury, in rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
Error from Superior Court, Turner County; E. E. Cox, Judge.
Action by C. E. Thrasher and others against the Farmers' Ginnery & Manufacturing Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Hal Lawson, of Abbeville, and T. R. Perry and R. S. Foy, both of Sylvester, for plaintiff in error.
J. A. Comer and A. S. Bussey, both of Ashburn, and Crum & Jones, of Cordele, for defendants in error.
A number of persons brought an equitable action for an accounting and to recover judgments against a warehouse company. They alleged, among other things, that the defendant was bound by contract, and by a local custom of the trade, to fully insure cotton stored with it, and that through its agents and officers it represented that it had done so; that in fact it took out a general policy for much less than the value of the cotton stored; that a loss by fire occurred, and a fund was realized by it from salvage and the insurance which it had, but the cotton saved was in such condition that it could not be identified. Other persons, claiming to have stored cotton with the warehouse company, were made parties. The case came to this court from a ruling on a demurrer, and the petition generally was upheld. Farmers' Ginnery, etc., Co. v. Thrasher, 140 Ga. 669, 79 S.E. 474. The case was then referred to an auditor, who made a report favorable to the plaintiffs. Exceptions to his report were filed. They were submitted to the judge of the superior court, without a jury. He rendered judgment against the exceptions, and the defendants brought the case to this court by writ of error. Pending the litigation a payment was made to each of the plaintiffs from the fund arising from the insurance which the warehouse company carried, and from the salvage. The amounts so realized, it was conceded by the plaintiffs, should be allowed as credits, and they claimed the value of the cotton lost, less such credits and certain charges.
1. There was evidence tending to show that, prior to about 1907 or 1908, the warehouse company had been charging 30 cents per bale for storage for 30 days, and had not been insuring cotton; that they inaugurated a practice of insuring the cotton stored with them; that a charge of 50 cents per bale was made for the first 30 days, which included charges for storage, warehouse charges, and insurance, and after 30 days an additional charge of 25 cents per bale per month was made; and that the defendant caused to be posted in prominent places about the premises, where they could be readily seen by customers or persons coming to the place, printed posters or notices, signed by it, to the effect that all cotton would be insured against loss by fire, and that a charge of 50 cents a bale would be made, which was to cover insurance and other warehouse charges. The auditor found:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Cleveland Mill & Power Co.
... ... Farmers' ... Ginnery Mfg. Co. v. Thrasher and others, 140 Ga. 669, 79 ... S.E ... ...