Gulf & S. I. R. Co. v. Magee Warehouse Co
| Decision Date | 08 March 1915 |
| Citation | 109 Miss. 9,67 So. 648 |
| Parties | GULF & S. I. R. CO. v. MAGEE WAREHOUSE CO |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
March 1915
APPEAL from the circuit court of Simpson county. HON. W. H. HUGHES Judge.
Suit by the Magee Warehouse Company against the Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Case reversed and remanded.
Wells May & Sanders, for appellant.
Russel & Russel, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by the Magee Warehouse Company against the Gulf & Ship Island Railroad Company upon an alleged implied contract for valuable services rendered to and accepted by the railroad company. The declaration demands judgment for loading fourteen thousand three hundred and sixty two bales of cotton on the cars of defendant at the rate of two cents per bale, which sum it is alleged was the customary charge for like service. It is further averred that the cotton was loaded upon orders from the station agent of defendant; that the railroad company had no sufficient platform, or other place at the station for the reception of cotton, and from whence it could be loaded on the cars; that the railroad company, by its course of business extending over a number of years, had selected plaintiff's warehouse as the place at which cotton must be placed for transportation. The evidence for plaintiff supported the averments of the declaration.
If the jury believed the witnesses for plaintiff, a verdict for plaintiff would not be disturbed, because the service was rendered and accepted by defendant under such circumstances that no reasonable person could assume that the benefits conferred were intended as a gratuity. Under the circumstances shown by plaintiff's evidence, the law will imply a promise to pay a fair and reasonable compensation for such services. Elliott on Contracts, section 1355 et seq.
On the other hand, defendant produced evidence which tended to show that the railroad company had built a spur track to the warehouse of plaintiff solely for the convenience and profit of plaintiff; that the loading of the cotton was a service rendered in return for the valuable privilege conferred. There was testimony which justified the railroad in believing that the warehouse company did not expect any compensation for the work.
The station agent testified that, when she took charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capital Paint & Glass Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co
... ... the amount in suit ... G. & ... S. I. R. R. Co. v. Magee Warehouse Co., 109 Miss. 9, ... 67 So. 648; 2 R. C. L., page 776, sec. 33; Allen Gravel ... Co ... ...
-
Redd v. L & A Contracting Co.
...to pay reasonable compensation therefor. The following authorities are cited in support of this statement: Gulf & S. I. R. R. Company v. Magee Warehouse Co., 109 Miss. 9, 67 So. 648; 58 Am.Jur. 514, Work and Labor, Sec. 6, p. 514. The latter authority points out, however, that such services......
-
Hickman v. Slough
... ... the transaction ... G. & ... S. I. R. Co. v. Magee Warehouse Co., 67 So. 648, 109 ... Miss. 9; Tarver v. Lindsey, 161 Miss 379, 137 So ... 93; ... ...
-
Hays v. Ryker
... ... to and signed by the parties. See, G. & S. I. R. Co. v ... McGee Warehouse Co., 67 So. 648 ... Counsel ... for appellant cites the case of Walker v. Osgood, 93 ... ...