Lowitz v. Chi., St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., No. 20198[292].

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: HOLT
• Citation: 161 N.W. 411,136 Minn. 227
• Parties: LOWITZ et al. v. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 23 February 1917
• Docket Number: No. 20198[292].

136 Minn. 227
161 N.W. 411

LOWITZ et al.
v.
CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

No. 20198[292].

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 23, 1917.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Charles S. Jelley, Judge.

Action by E. Lowitz and others against the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

Syllabus by the Court

Chapter 414, Laws 1909 (Gen. St. 1913, §§ 4322-4329), making a bill of lading, acquired in good faith and for value, conclusive that the carrier issuing the same received the goods therein specified for transportation, has no application and no effect where the liability of the common carrier arises out of the issuance of an interstate bill of lading.

[161 N.W. 411]

Richard L. Kennedy, of St. Paul (J. B. Sheean, of St. Paul, of counsel), for appellant.

Kerr, Fowler, Schmitt & Furber, of Minneapolis, for respondents.

HOLT, J.

Plaintiffs' complaint set out that R. J. Johnstone was doing business in Minneapolis, there owning and in possession of a carload of bulk corn which on March 1, 1915, he delivered to defendant, a common carrier, who thereupon, while so in possession, executed and delivered to Johnstone

[161 N.W. 412]

its order bill of lading, whereby defendant did state that it had received at Minneapolis, Minn., on said date, said corn from Johnstone and did undertake to carry the same to Chicago, Ill.; that upon receiving said bill of lading Johnstone drew a draft on plaintiffs for $1,100 payable to a bank in Minneapolis; that concurrently therewith Johnstone indorsed the bill of lading in blank and delivered the same with draft annexed to the bank, which in good faith advanced the money stated to Johnstone; that on March 2, 1915, the bank presented the draft with the bill of lading annexed to plaintiffs, who then duly accepted and paid the draft and received the bill of lading; and that the car of corn should have reached Chicago within a week after March 1, 1915, but that at divers and sundry times thereafter plaintiffs have tendered defendant the bill of lading and without avail have demanded delivery of the corn. The answer was that, when Johnstone applied for and came into possession of the bill of lading, he did not have or own the car of corn and it was never received by defendant. The stipulated facts, embodied in the findings, make it clear that on the day stated an agent of defendant, duly authorized to issue and deliver order bills of lading upon freight received for transportation, did issue the bill of lading in question, but no corn was delivered to or received by defendant. A mistake had been made by Johnstone, and it was not discovered until after plaintiffs, in good faith and without notice of the mistake, had for value become the owners and holders of the bill of lading. The court gave plaintiffs judgment for the value of the corn. Defendant appeals.

Had the bill of lading represented an intrastate...