Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Hartwell

• Decision Date: 12 June 1896
• Citation: 99 Ky. 436
• Parties: Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Hartwell.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

99 Ky. 436

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Hartwell.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 12, 1896.

APPEAL FROM HARDIN CIRCUIT COURT.

H. W. BRUCE, W. H. MARRIOTT AND WALKER D. HINES FOR APPELLANT.

R. S. STITH AND S. H. BUSH FOR APPELLEE.

WALKER D. HINES IN PETITION FOR MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF THE OPINION.

JUDGE PAYNTER DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

On the 9th of September, 1892, Hartwell delivered to the appellant for shipment to A. Pennington & Co., of St. Louis, Mo., one hundred and seventy barrels of apples, for which he received from it a bill of lading. On the day following, Hartwell made a draft in favor of the First National Bank of Elizabethtown, Ky., on the consignee, A. Pennington & Co., for three hundred dollars and at the same time time delivered to it the bill of lading. He then notified the appellant not to deliver the apples to the consignee unless he presented the bill of lading and paid the draft which he had drawn in favor of the bank. In violation of Hartwell's order the appellant delivered to A. Pennington & Co. the apples without requiring them to present the bill of lading and pay the draft. The bank gave Hartwell credit for the draft, but Pennington & Co., failing to pay it, this action was brought to recover the amount of it of the appellant.

The answer denied that Hartwell was the owner of the apples and alleged that they were owned by Pennington & Co.

The shipper of goods may, even after the delivery to the carrier and after the bill of lading has been signed and delivered, alter their destination and direct their delivery to another consignee, unless the bill of lading has been forwarded to the consignee, or some one for his use. However this would not be the case if a state of facts existed which made the delivery of the goods to the carrier a delivery to the consignee and the owner of them. (Hutchinson on Carriers, 2d ed., sec. 134.)

While the consignee in the bill of lading is presumptively the owner of the goods and must be treated by the carrier as the owner, unless he has notice to the contrary, when goods are shipped deliverable to the order of the consignor, for and on account of the consignee, the carrier can not deliver them to such consignee, except upon the production of the bill of lading, properly rendered by the consignor.

When the goods are thus shipped and deliverable the carrier must take notice that the consignee intended to retain the control of the disposition of the goods. (Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 130.)

So when the shipper gives notice after they have been received by the carrier for transportation and before they are delivered to the consignee, that he is not to deliver them to the consignee he must take notice that the consignor intends to retain control of their ultimate disposition. After such notice the presumption no longer obtains that the consignee is the owner of the goods.

Bills of lading are assignable. When properly rendered and delivered with the intention of passing the title to them, it is a constructive delivery of the goods. (Hutchinson on Carriers, ...