Del Gaizo Distributing Corporation v. Gallagher
Decision Date | 15 May 1937 |
Docket Number | 125-1936 |
Citation | 192 A. 144,127 Pa.Super. 53 |
Parties | Del Gaizo Distributing Corporation, Appellant, v. Gallagher |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 12, 1936
Appeal from judgment of M. C. Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1934, No. 225 in case of Del Gaizo Distributing Corporation v. James Gallagher, trading as Gallagher Warehouse.
Assumpsit. Before Knowles, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict directed for defendant and judgment entered thereon. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of motion for new trial.
Judgment reversed with a venire facias de novo.
Joseph A. Keough, with him Levi, Mandel and Miller, for appellant.
Algernon R. Clapp, of White & Clapp, with him Harold Cooper Roberts for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ. Opinion by James, J.
James, J., May 15, 1937:
This is an action of assumpsit to recover the value of 35 cases of tomato paste stored by plaintiff in defendant's warehouse, which defendant refused to deliver upon demand. At the trial the court gave binding instructions for defendant and later refused plaintiff's motion for judgment n. o. v., or a new trial.
The agreed statement of facts, in lieu of printing the record, is substantially as follows: On September 30, 1933, defendant issued and delivered to plaintiff two warehouse receipts for a total of 600 cases, and on October 2, 1933, four warehouse receipts for a total of 1330 cases, all alleged to contain tomato paste, the relevant portions of said receipts being as follows:
The warehouse receipts were identical except as to the number of cases, and a notation on one receipt for 500 cases, dated October 2, 1933, as follows: "1 case 2 cans short. 1 case 10 cans short, 16 cases stained."
Plaintiff imported all 1930 cases, alleged to contain tomato paste, from Italy. The cases were shipped in round wooden boxes containing sealed cans, so that it was impossible to ascertain the contents of the cases without opening them, or to ascertain the contents of the cans without opening them in turn; and neither plaintiff nor defendant had any actual knowledge of the contents of said cases or cans. Between October 27, 1933 and February 3, 1934, plaintiff withdrew from defendant's storage house, 1895 of said cases. On February 5, 1934, plaintiff issued to one of its customers, R. Scetto and Son, an order on defendant for the remaining 35 cases, which order was presented on February 13, 1934; defendant failed to deliver the 35 cases or any part thereof. In addition to the charges paid by plaintiff to defendant, storage charges accrued for the storage month commencing February 2, 1934, on 65 cases, of which 50 cases were withdrawn on February 3, and the remaining 15 cases on February 5, 1934. For said storage there was a charge of $ 1.30, which plaintiff has never satisfied or offered to satisfy.
At the trial the court sustained defendant's objection to plaintiff's offer to prove that the merchandise covered by the warehouse receipts was packed in cans in Italy and shipped to plaintiff in Philadelphia in the original closed packages, that plaintiff through its agent, Tofini, sold and distributed 1895 cases of the merchandise to plaintiff's customers and there were no complaints from any of the distributees that any of the packages contained any substance other than tomato paste; and to the offer to prove by the witness, Scetto, that he distributed 80 cases out of the lot covered by the warehouse receipts among his customers and there were no complaints from any of them that the contents of the cases contained any substance other than tomato paste.
Plaintiff relies upon the warehouse receipts as prima facie evidence of the receipt of the described merchandise. He concedes that where a warehouseman has redelivered a package to a consignee or owner, when it is found that the contents are different than described in the receipt, proof must be made that the contents of the package conform to the receipt; but contends that where a warehouseman fails in his duty to make redelivery of the package and contents, the receipt is prima facie evidence of the contents. The giving of a receipt by a carrier stating that goods were received "in apparent good order, except as noted, contents and condition of contents of packages unknown" is an admission as to conditions visible and open to inspection: Isdaner v. Phila. & Reading Ry. Co., 54 Pa.Super. 509; and the burden of going forward with the evidence and rebutting the presumption raised by such a receipt falls on the carrier: Beresin v. Penna. R. R. Co., 116 Pa.Super. 291, 176 A. 774. But where the goods are not visible and open to inspection, on a receipt for goods in apparent good order except as noted "(contents, condition and quality unknown)," the plaintiff must prove that the goods were in good condition when delivered to the carrier, and there is no presumption in the absence of evidence that they were in such condition: Castellucci v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 40 Pa.Super. 24; Speare v. Phila. & Reading Ry. Co., 47 Pa.Super. 639; Isdaner v. Phila. & Reading Ry. Co., supra. The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that the package delivered to the carrier contained the articles which the bill of lading called for: Isdaner v. Central R. R. of N. J., 65 Pa.Super. 156. In Speare v. Phila. & Reading Co., supra, a suit brought for a lot of second-hand household goods in apparent good order, contents and condition unknown, shipped from Portland, Oregon, this court said: The designation that the cases contained "tomato paste" must be considered in connection with the other language of the receipt, to wit: "contents, condition and quality unknown." Similar receipts in which the designation was as specific as the present receipts were held not sufficient to bind the carrier in the absence of proof of the contents of the shipment: Shore v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co., 99 Conn. 129, 121 A. 344, "1 box Shirts;" Dworkwitz v. N. Y. Cent. R. R., 230 N.Y. 188, 129 N.E. 650, "One case cl. (clothes);" Miller v. Hannibal & St. Joseph R. R. Co., 90 N.Y. 430, "30 bbls., eggs;" Josephy v. Panhandle & S. F. Ry., 235 N.Y. 306, 139 N.E. 277, "Dressed Poultry weight 20,000 lbs." We therefore conclude that the warehouse receipts were not sufficient to establish the contents of the cases, and plaintiff was required to produce additional proof. But in order to successfully carry this burden it was not necessary to show, by direct evidence, the contents of the cases at the time they were delivered to the warehouse. It would be impracticable if the rule of the law would be satisfied with nothing less than such direct positive proof: Kauffman v. Central R. R. Co. of N. J., 41 Pa.Super. 486.
With this rule in mind, did the trial court properly reject the offers made by plaintiff?
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tuschman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 11755.
...Glow Electric Co., 1929, 35 Ohio App. 291, 172 N.E. 425. Nor in Pennsylvania where the case was tried. Del Gaizo Distributing Corp. v. Gallagher, 1937, 127 Pa.Super. 53, 57, 192 A. 144. And not in any other jurisdiction which we have seen. Swiney v. American Exp. Co., 1909, 144 Iowa 342, 11......
-
Young v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
...by life process until they arrive at the ultimate conclusion on the issue trying." In accord, see Del Gazio Distributing Corp. v. Gallagher, 1937, 127 Pa.Super. 53, 61, 192 A. 144, 148, and Aurand v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., 1938, 131 Pa.Super. 502, 507, 200 A. 285, 287. As ......
-
Com. v. Bolger
...Pa. 436, 438, 191 A. 165; Madden v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 106 Pa.Super. Super. 474, 480, 481, 162 A. 687; Del Gaizo Dist. Corp. v. Gallagher, 127 Pa.Super. 53, 61, 62, 63, 192 A. 144. It never was very good law that you could not have an inference upon an inference. See Wigmore on Evidence......
-
Commonwealth v. Bolger
... ... A. & P. Tea Co., 106 Pa.Super. 474, 480, 481, 162 A ... 687; Del Gaizo Dist. Corp. v. Gallagher, 127 ... Pa.Super. 53, 61, 62, 63, 192 A. 144 ... ...