Louisiana Nat'l Bank of New Orleans v. Laveille
| Decision Date | 31 March 1873 |
| Citation | 52 Mo. 380 |
| Parties | LOUISIANA NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ORLEANS, Appellant, v. THEODORE LAVEILLE, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.
Sharp & Broadhead, for Appellant.
I. If Sinnoth and Adams were held out as agents to give bills of lading generally for the boat, and acted as such, and made the bill of lading, and plaintiffs purchased it innocently,--then although there were restrictions, in the instructions to them or in their authority, as between them and their principals, and they violated it; yet if plaintiff knew nothing of such limitation or of its violation--he is not affected thereby.--The principals must account to plaintiff, and look to their agent for redress. (Story on Agency, § 126,-127 et seq.,)
II. The defendants (by agent) having made, delivered and put in circulation, the bill of lading, it being purchased or advanced upon by an innocent third person, as to him they are concluded thereby, by their statement therein, that the goods had in fact been all shipped on board the vessel.
Glover & Shepley, for Respondents.
If the master had signed this bill of lading, the property not being actually on board, no liability attaches to the owners, either to the consignee or to his assignee for value.
The agent has no higher authority than the master and cannot bind owners where goods are not on board. (Gessel vs. Barth, 2 Law Rep. Exch., 267; per Chief Baron Kelley and Baron Bramwell.)
Action in the St. Louis Circuit Court, brought by the Louisiana National Bank against Theodore Laveille and others.
The petition in substance states that defendants were the owners of the steamboat Mississippi, and common carriers, engaged as such in carrying on said boat, property, merchandise, &c. between the port of New Orleans and that of St. Louis; that the defendants had their officers, agents, and employees, engaged in their said business at New Orleans, &c. that on the 8th day of February, 1870, at said last mentioned port, and while said boat was at the same, defendants by their authorized agents executed and delivered to A. C. Wilbur & Co., a certain bill of lading of that date, in which was acknowledged the shipment by said Wilbur & Co., on said boat of eighty-nine drums of caustic soda in good order and condition marked “L. N. & Co.,” consigned to the order of said Wilbur & Co., that by said bill of lading it was also agreed, that said caustic soda should, dangers of navigation &c., excepted, be delivered in like good order to the consignee at St. Louis; that the said agents were duly authorized to execute and deliver bills of lading at New Orleans in behalf of said defendants, and of the said boat; that thereupon said Wilbur & Co., with said bill of lading in their possession on the same day made their certain bill of exchange of that date at New Orleans directed to Lewis, Nanson & Co., at St. Louis, a mercantile firm at that place, and requested and ordered said drawees at ten days sight to pay to the order of said makers $2,400; that said Wilbur & Co., sold and transferred by written indorsement and assignment said bill of exchange and said bill of lading thereto attached, to plaintiff, who took and purchased the same on the faith and security of said bill of lading, and in due time caused said bill of exchange to be presented at St. Louis to said drawees for acceptance, which was refused; said bill of exchange was duly protested and notification thereof given to said Wilbur & Co., and afterwards, at the proper time, said bill of exchange was duly presented to said drawees at St. Louis for payment, payment demanded, payment refused, and protest made for such refusal, and due notice given to Wilbur & Co.; that when the boat reached St. Louis plaintiff presented the bill of lading to said defendants and proper agents on said boat, demanded the delivery of the eighty-nine drums of caustic soda, but defendant only delivered five of said drums, and failed, and refused to deliver the residue; that said five drums were only worth $146.27, that being the amount plaintiff received therefor, but that the eighty-four drums, which defendants failed and refused to deliver, were worth $2,456, that the same were not lost, nor their delivery to plaintiff prevented, by the danger, of navigation, &c., but only by the negligence and mismanagement of defendants their agents and employees; that no part of the bill of exchange, except the sum for which the five drums of caustic sold, had ever been paid on the bill of exchange; that Wilbur & Co., had become and were insolvent; that by reason of the premises and of defendants refusal to deliver said eighty-four drums of caustic soda, and of the negligence and mismanagement of defendants, their agents and employees, plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $2,500, for which judgment was asked. The bill of lading referred o in the petition was signed,
The defendants answered, denying, that they had any agents in New Orleans or elsewhere, except the officers of the boat, denied the execution and delivery by themselves or agents of the bill of lading to Wilbur & Co., and that it was ever agreed that the eighty-nine drums of caustic soda should be delivered at St. Louis; averred they had no knowledge &c., as to the acts of Wilbur & Co., or of plaintiff, respecting the alleged bill of lading, and the alleged bill of exchange; admitted the reception on their boat Mississippi, from Wilbur & Co., of five drums of caustic soda and their delivery to plaintiffs, but denied the reception on board the said boat of any more drums of caustic soda than the said five, which was the reason averred for the non-delivery of a greater number; denied that the eighty-four drums of caustic soda ever came on board the boat or into the custody of defendants their servants or agents, denied all mismanagement, negligence, liability, &c.
A jury was impanelled to try the cause, and testimony was introduced tending to show that the bill of exchange mentioned in plaintiff's petition was negotiated and purchased by the plaintiff from Wilbur & Co., through their broker, Fazened, in the usual course of business for full value and on the faith of the bill of lading thereto attached; that Sinnoth & Adams were the agents of the boat Mississippi at New Orleans at the time the bill of lading bears date, that only five drums of caustic soda of same marks destination and consignees as those mentioned in plaintiffs petition ever were received on board the boat; that Sinnoth & Adams had power to sign bills of lading for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roy & Roy v. Northern P. Ry. Co.
... ... R. Co. v. First ... Nat. Bank, 10 Neb. 556, 7 N.W. 311, 35 Am. Rep. 488; ... Brooke ... Miss. Cent. Co., 29 ... La. Ann. 446; Louisiana Ntl. Bank v. Laveille, 52 ... Mo. 380; Ntl. Bank of ... ...
-
Garrison v. Babbage Transp. Co.
...Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U.S. 7; Schooner v. Buckingham, 18 Howard, 182; Hutchinson on Carriers [Ed. 1880], sec. 122, 123, 124; Bank v. Lavielle, 52 Mo. 380. The point made in the brief of appellant is, that the defendants, having had notice of the suit, and opportunity to defend it, should b......
-
The Watkins National Bank v. The Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.
...exists in the agent, so far as to bind the carrier, the freight must have been actually received on the carrier's vessel or car. [Bank v. Laveille, 52 Mo. 380; Freeman v. Buckingham, 18 HOW 182, 15 L.Ed. 341; Pollard v. Vinton, 105 U.S. 7, 26 L.Ed. 998.] The frequent frauds thus practiced b......
-
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Smith
... ... Sparks v ... Indemnity Co., 61 Mo.App. 109; Bank v. Woesten, ... 144 Mo. 407; Smith v. Railroad, 143 Mo ... Supreme Court in the case of Louisiana National Bank v ... Laveille, 52 Mo. 380." This court ... ...