Jelletts v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1883
• Citation: 15 N.W. 237,30 Minn. 265
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Parties: JELLETTS v ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

30 Minn. 265

15 N.W. 237

JELLETTSvST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed March 7, 1883.

Appeal from judgment of district court, county of Ramsey.

R. J. Reid, for respondent.

R. B. Galusha, for appellant.

VANDERBURGH, J.

Plaintiff sues for the value of a car-load of corn, alleged to have been wrongfully converted by the defendant. The plaintiff had contracted with one Webb, to sell and deliver him the corn, to be paid for in cash before delivery. Webb paid $70 of the price, but the balance, $30.50, which was to be paid immediately, he neglected to pay. Whereupon plaintiff caused the grain to be shipped upon one of defendant's cars for account of himself, in the name of Jellett & Co., under which he was transacting business, though he had no partner. The defendant delivered the corn to Webb at his request, but without the consent or direction of the plaintiff. There is no evidence of any further payment or offer of payment by Webb to plaintiff, or any settlement between them, or of any act of ratification by plaintiff of such delivery to Webb. The title to the property must be assumed to be in plaintiff, as general owner. The defendant received the goods from the plaintiff's possession. This is sufficient evidence of title in the plaintiff, for the purposes of the action, in the absence of any evidence that the property was demanded or taken from the carrier by some one having a superior claim. The defendant could not, of its own mere motion, set up a want of title in the plaintiff. Story, Bailm. § 582.

The ownership and right of possession being in plaintiff, the delivery of the property to Webb before the payment of the balance of the price was unauthorized and wrongful, and amounted to a conversion. Upon the question of damages, the defendant contends that he should be allowed the amount paid by Webb on the corn, $70, in reduction of plaintiff's damages, and that the court erred in not allowing defendant to amend his answer to conform to the facts proved. The general rule of damages in trover is the value of the property, with interest. This is modified in some instances by the relations to the property of the parties to the action. If the case is in such situation that the rights of both parties can be adjusted in the same action, and the plaintiff can be indemnified by a sum less than the full value, it may be so done and circuity of action be avoided. Chamberlain v. Shaw, 18 Pick. 283. Thus, where the plaintiff has a special property in goods, his damages as against the general owner is the value of his interest only. Packet Co. v. Robertson, 13 Minn. 293, (Gil. 269;) Dodge v. Chandler, Id. 120, (Gil. 105.) But in an action by such plaintiff against a stranger, he will be entitled to the full value of the goods, holding the surplus over the amount of his own claim as trustee for the general owner. Sedg. Dam. *482.

And defendant may show, in mitigation of damages, any lawful application of the property or its avails to the use of the owner, though the latter is not a party to the suit, because the plaintiff is not answerable over in such case. Becker v. Dunham, 27 Minn. 32; [S. C. 6 N. W. REP. 406;]Squire v. Hollenback, 9 Pick. 551-2; Lowell v. Parker, 10 Metc. 316-17; Kaley v. Shed, Id. 319.

So, also, where the property has been returned and received by the plaintiff in the suit, or its proceeds have, by due process, gone to pay his debts. Pierce v. Benjamin, 14 Pick. 361;Ball v. Liney, 48 N. Y. 6; Dailey v. Crowley, 5 Lans. 301; Bates v. Cartwright, 36 Ill. 518; Rosenfield v. Express Co. 1 Woods, C. C. 131. And in general the right of the plaintiff in trover to recover the full value of the goods is subject to any lawful lien, claim, or interest which the defendant may have in them, to be adjudicated in the same action. The allowance of such matter in mitigation is an application of the doctrine of recoupment, where there is privity between the parties. Parish v. Wheeler, 21 N. Y. 511-12;Russell v. Butler, 21 Wend. 304; Johnson v. Stear, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 330; Fowler v. Gilman, 13 Metc. 268; Chinery v. Viall, 5 Hurl. & N. 288; Sedg. Dam. *482, notes; Chamberlain v. Shaw, supra.

In the case at bar Webb had no title or lien. There was no privity between defendant and him as respects any interest or claim of the latter, and defendant has itself no legal or equitable interest in the property upon which to ground any claim for limiting the recovery or modifying the application of the general rule of damages. Nesbitt v. Lumber Co. 21 Minn. 493. The legal title to the corn was in the plaintiff at the time of the conversion. It was in defendant's possession, subject to plaintiff's order. Defendant wrongfully delivered it to Webb, to whose relations with the plaintiff defendant is a stranger. And it is not competent to adjust the differences between plaintiff and Webb in this action. McMichael v. Morton, 13 Pa. St. 215.

As respects the question of the privity necessary to entitle defendant to interpose such matter in mitigation, it is not entitled to insist upon the fact that it made a voluntary and unauthorized delivery of the corn upon a contract for its purchase. The property, its disposition and control, belonged to plaintiff. Defendant was responsible to plaintiff alone, and had no right to make a voluntary appropriation of it to another, and would accordingly be accountable under the issues, as they stand, for the full value. Redf. Carr. § 318; Cram v. Bailey, 10 Gray, 88;Angier v. Paper Co. 1 Gray, 621;Brown v. Haynes, 52 Me. 578.

Defendant will have a right of action over...