J.C. Haas & Co. v. Citizens' Bank

Decision Date30 June 1905
PartiesJ. C. HAAS & CO. v. CITIZENS' BANK OF DYERSBURG.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; J. C. Richardson Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Action by J. C. Haas & Co. against the Citizens' Bank of Dyersburg. Demurrers interposed by defendant to the complaint were sustained, and on plaintiff's refusal to plead over judgment was rendered for defendant, from which plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Rehearing denied.

The complaint filed in the circuit court, as finally amended, is as follows:

"Now come the plaintiffs, and, by leave of the court first had and obtained, file as an amendment to and in lieu of the complaint heretofore filed in said cause, counts 1, 2, and 3, as follows, to wit:
"(1) The plaintiffs claim of the defendant the sum of fifty dollars damages for this: The plaintiffs, who were merchants then engaged in business at Montgomery Alabama, ordered on, to wit, May 17, 1901, from one Henry A. Klyce, then residing and doing business at Dyersburg Tennessee, two car loads of sacked meal, each car to contain, to wit, three hundred sacks, to weigh, to wit ninety-two pounds each, and at and for the price of, to wit, one and 7/100 dollars per sack, and, to wit, three hundred sacks to weigh, to wit, forty-four pounds each, at and for the price of, to wit, fifty-three cents per sack; all to be by him immediately shipped to the plaintiffs at Montgomery, Alabama. That the said Klyce did, on, to wit, the 18th day of May, 1901, deliver to a railroad company, for transportation to Montgomery, Alabama, for the plaintiffs, to be delivered upon the order of the said Klyce, a car containing meal, and then and there received from the said railroad company a bill of lading therefor to himself, and purporting to show that said car contained 500 sacks of meal. That the said Klyce then and there made out an account in favor of himself against the plaintiffs for, to wit, three hundred sacks of meal, containing forty-four pounds each, at fifty-three cents per sack, and two hundred sacks, each containing ninety-two pounds of meal, at one and 7/100 dollars per sack, and aggregating, to wit, three hundred and seventy-three dollars, and attached the said account and bill of lading to a draft for the sum of, to wit, $373, drawn by said Klyce on the plaintiffs, payable to the defendant, the Citizens' Bank, and then and there sold and delivered said draft, bill of lading and account to the defendant. That the said Klyce did, on, to wit, the 21st day of May, 1901, deliver to the said railroad company for transportation to Montgomery, Alabama, or the plaintiffs, to be delivered upon the order of the said Klyce, a car containing meal, and then and there received from the said company a bill of lading therefor to himself, and purporting to show that said car contained, to wit, 600 sacks of meal, and then and there made out an account in his favor against the plaintiffs for, to wit, three hundred sacks of meal, weighing ninety-two pounds each, for the price of one and 7/100 dollars per sack, and three hundred sacks weighing forty-four pounds each, at fifty-three cents per sack, and aggregating to wit, four hundred and eighty dollars, and attached the said account and the said bill of lading to a draft drawn by the said Klyce on the plaintiffs, in favor of the said Citizens' Bank for, to wit, four hundred and eighty dollars, and sold and delivered said draft, bill of lading and account to the defendant. That the said drafts and accounts and bills of lading were by the defendant forwarded to a bank at Montgomery, Alabama, for collection from plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were compelled to pay, and did pay, the amount of said respective drafts, and accounts to the said bank at Montgomery, Alabama, before the plaintiffs could and did obtain possession of the said meal, and before they had an opportunity of inspecting and examining the said meal. That upon the payment of the said drafts and accounts plaintiffs received the same, together with the said bills of lading, from the said bank, and immediately thereafter obtained possession of the meal in said cars, whereupon the plaintiffs then for the first time learned that in one of the cars--the second one shipped as aforesaid--there were seven of said forty-four pound sacks less than sold and billed as aforesaid, and in the other of said cars there were eleven of said ninety-two pound sacks less than sold and billed as aforesaid, and that, to wit, seven other of the forty-four pound sacks therein were torn, and the meal therefrom slipped upon the floor of said car, and thereby damaged and rendered valueless to the plaintiffs, and that, to wit, twenty-nine sacks of said meal were torn, so that plaintiffs were obliged at their own expense to resack the same before removing it from the car, at great cost and expense, to wit, twenty-five dollars--all to the damage of the plaintiffs in the sum aforesaid; wherefore they sue.

"(2) The plaintiffs claim of the defendant the sum of twenty-five dollars damages for this: That Henry A. Klyce, who was then engaged in business at Dyersburg, Tennessee, did on, to wit the 18th day of June, 1901, notify the plaintiffs by letter that he, the said Klyce, had consigned to himself at Montgomery, Alabama, a car of sacked bran, containing three hundred sacks, each sack weighing one hundred pounds, and that he had drawn a draft on plaintiffs, with the bill of lading attached, for said bran, at the price of seventy-five cents per hundred pounds delivered, and requested plaintiffs to sell said bran to the best advantage. That the said Klyce did, on, to wit, said 18th day of June, 1901, deliver to a railroad company for transportation to Montgomery, Alabama, to be delivered on the order of said Klyce, a car containing bran, and then and there received from said railroad company a bill of lading therefor to himself, and purporting to show that said car contained, to wit, three hundred sacks of bran. That the said Klyce then and there made out an account in his favor against the plaintiffs for, to wit, three hundred sacks of bran containing one hundred pounds each, at seventy-five cents per hundred pounds, and aggregating, to wit, two hundred and twenty-five dollars, and sent the same to the plaintiffs. That he then and there attached the said bill of lading to a draft drawn by him, the said Klyce, on the plaintiffs, payable to the Citizens' Bank, the defendant, and then and there sold and delivered said draft and bill of lading to the defendant. That the said draft and bill of lading were by said defendant forwarded to a bank at Montgomery, Alabama, for collection from plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs were compelled to pay and did pay the amount of such draft to the said bank at Montgomery, Alabama, before the plaintiffs could obtain possession of the said bran, and before they had an opportunity of inspecting and examining the same. That upon the payment of said draft the plaintiffs received the same, together with said bill of lading, from the said bank, and immediately thereafter obtained possession of said bran in said car, whereupon the plaintiffs then for the first time learned that the said bran weighed one thousand pounds less than the amount billed by the said Klyce and paid for by plaintiffs as aforesaid. That the plaintiffs sold the bran to the best advantage, and realized therefrom the sum of, to wit, two hundred and seventeen and 50/100 dollars. That the plaintiffs' commission for selling said bran amounted to the sum of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Mason v. Nelson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 21 Octubre 1908
    ...in Landa v. Lattin Bros. is that of Haas v. Bank, 144 Ala. 562, 39 So. 129. The decision reported also in 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242, and 113 Am. St. Rep. 61, where it is subjected adverse comment in a note by the editor, proceeds on the theory that the holder in taking over the draft with bill......
  • Hicks v. Meadows
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 11 Febrero 1915
    ... ... the moneys alleged to be due him by the Bank of Ashford on a ... certain certificate of deposit, which certificate is ... Henderson, 123 Ala. 612, 26 So. 498, 82 Am.St.Rep. 147; ... Haas & Co., v. Citizens' Bank, 144 Ala. 562, 39 ... So. 129, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.)) ... ...
  • Cosmos Cotton Co. v. First Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 2 Febrero 1911
    ... ... to be shown or set up ... The ... case of Haas v. Citizens' Bank, 144 Ala. 562, 39 ... So. 129, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242, 113 Am. St. Rep. 61, ... ...
  • Chase Nat. Bank of City of New York v. Spokane County
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 1923
    ... ... other jurisdictions: American Thresherman v ... Citizens' Bank of Anderson, 154 Wis. 366, 141 N.W ... 210, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 644; Fourth National ... shipper would have been. Haas v. Citizens' Bank, ... 144 Ala. 562, 39 So. 129, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242, and cases ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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