Freeman v. Kraemer, s. 9586-(164).
| Decision Date | 19 December 1895 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 9586-(164).,s. 9586-(164). |
| Citation | 63 Minn. 242 |
| Parties | C. F. FREEMAN v. P. G. KRAEMER and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
It appeared in evidence that on November 21, 1894, in response to inquiry of defendant Stevenson, plaintiff wrote Stevenson, from Roberts, Wisconsin, that he had no hay on hand, but that there was a party there who had three or four cars of hay which he was going to press, which would cost Stevenson $12 delivered at Duluth. In the same letter plaintiff inquired of Stevenson if he handled oats and gave him a quotation at 31½ cents, delivered at Duluth. On November 22, 1894, Stevenson wrote plaintiff that he would give the party mentioned $12 per ton for one car of good timothy hay f. o. b. Duluth, and ordered one car of oats at 31¼ cents f. o. b. Duluth. On November 23, 1894, plaintiff wrote Stevenson that he had booked him one car of oats and one car of hay, delivered at Duluth, and would get them off as quickly as possible. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
L. U. C. Titus, for appellants.
Jaques & Hudson, for respondent.
On November 26, 1894, plaintiff shipped a car load of oats and a car load of hay from Roberts, Wisconsin, to one Stevenson, a commission merchant at Duluth, Minnesota. A bill of lading or shipping receipt, whichever it may be called, was issued by the railway company to plaintiff (as C. F. Freeman & Co.) for each car. One of these bills of lading, as far as here material, reads as follows:
The other bill of lading is in the same form. A few days prior to this, Stevenson wrote plaintiff offering $12 per ton for one car of hay, and 31¼ cents per bushel for one car of oats, and the shipment to him was in response to his offer. Immediately on shipping the two cars, plaintiff drew one draft for the price of the hay, and attached it to the bill of lading for the car of hay, and drew another draft for the price of the oats, and attached it to the bill of lading for the car of oats. These drafts were drawn on Stevenson in favor of plaintiff's banker at Roberts, who forwarded them, with the attached bills of lading, to another banker at Duluth, for collection, but the drafts were not discounted.
These drafts arrived in Duluth and were presented to Stevenson for payment on November 28, but he refused to pay them, giving as an excuse that the cars had not yet arrived. The cars had arrived on the 27th, and on the 28th the railway company, on the order of Stevenson, delivered them to defendants, who claim that they bought the oats and hay from Stevenson in good faith, and paid him in full for the same. November 29 was a legal holiday, and on the next day the Duluth banker attempted to find Stevenson, and again demand payment of the drafts from him, but he could not be found. Thereupon the drafts and bills of lading were returned to plaintiff, who proceeded to Duluth, and demanded the oats and hay of defendants, who refused to deliver the same to him, and this action was brought for damages for the conversion of the same by defendants. On the trial the court ordered the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff for the value of the property, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial defendants appeal.
We are of the opinion that the order appealed from should be affirmed.
It clearly and conclusively appears from the evidence that the sale or contemplated sale from plaintiff to Stevenson was to be a cash transaction. No indicia of ownership were given to Stevenson. On the contrary, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial