Mason v. Exporters & Traders Compress Co., 1690.

• Decision Date: 30 April 1936
• Docket Number: No. 1690.,1690.
• Citation: 94 S.W.2d 758
• Parties: MASON et al. v. EXPORTERS & TRADERS COMPRESS CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

94 S.W.2d 758

MASON et al. v. EXPORTERS & TRADERS COMPRESS CO. et al.

No. 1690.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

April 30, 1936.

Rehearing Denied May 28, 1936.

Appeal from McLennan County Court; Aubrey Morris, Judge.

Action in a justice court by W. S. Mason, trading as the W. S. Mason Cotton Company, against the Exporters & Traders Compress Company, wherein defendant filed its bill of interpleader making C. C. Gipe a party defendant, and wherein the Texas Cotton Co-Operative Association intervened. From a judgment for C. C. Gipe in county court to which the case was appealed from the justice court, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Tirey & Tirey and Gene Maddin, all of Waco, for appellants.

Stansell Bryan, Barney A. Garrett, and Sleeper, Boynton & Kendall, all of Waco, for appellees.

HOWELL, Special Justice.

This case originated in the justice court and was an action by appellant W. S. Mason, trading as W. S. Mason Cotton Company, against Exporters & Traders Compress Company, Inc., to recover the title and possession of three bales of cotton, or their value.

Exporters & Traders Compress Company filed its bill of interpleader alleging that the cotton sued for was in its warehouse, but there were outstanding warehouse receipts in the possession of C. C. Gipe and made him party defendant and tendered the cotton into court.

C. C. Gipe, appellee herein, answered alleging that he was an innocent purchaser for value of three negotiable warehouse receipts issued by Exporters & Traders Compress Company, Inc., setting out that he had purchased same from one E. P. Simpson, who was an employee of appellant and in whom appellant had intrusted the custody and possession of the negotiable warehouse receipts, representing the cotton in controversy, and that he, appellee, had no notice of any defect in title of E. P. Simpson.

Texas Cotton Co-Operative Association filed its plea of intervention claiming the cotton belonged to it and that W. S. Mason, trading as W. S. Mason Cotton Company, was its agent and that any recovery had by W. S. Mason would be for the benefit of it.

Judgment was rendered in favor of appellee C. C. Gipe in the justice court for the recovery of title and possession of the three bales of cotton evidenced by warehouse receipts issued by Exporters & Traders Compress Company, Inc., Nos. 330981, 327400, and 330210.

The cause was appealed to the county court at law, and upon submission to the jury on special issues the jury found as follows:

First, that the warehouse receipts were intrusted to the custody or possession of E. P. Simpson; second, that while E. P. Simpson was intrusted with the custody or possession of the warehouse receipts he failed to return the receipts to W. S. Mason; third, that E. P. Simpson negotiated same to C. C. Gipe; fourth, that C. C. Gipe paid E. P. Simpson for said receipts; and, fifth, that C. C. Gipe had no notice of the fact that E. P. Simpson had no right to sell same. On this verdict, judgment was rendered in favor of appellee C. C. Gipe for title and possession of the three bales of cotton evidenced by the warehouse receipts.

Appellant contends that E. P. Simpson stole the warehouse receipts, and since the warehouse receipts were mere symbols of the goods or cotton in store, if the goods or cotton had been stolen, under the common law, title would not be divested from the true owner; therefore, the sale of the receipts, which evidenced the goods or cotton, could not have the effect of divesting the title. In support of this contention, appellant attacks the judgment rendered on the ground that he was, first, entitled to an instructed verdict, or a judgment non obstante veredicto; and, second, there was neither evidence nor pleadings to support the jury finding.

Appellee contends that under the provisions of the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act he was a bona fide purchaser for value of the warehouse receipts from E. P. Simpson, who was intrusted with the custody or possession of the warehouse receipts in question, and therefore the title to the cotton, evidenced by the receipts, became vested in him.

It is therefore to be determined whether appellee C. C. Gipe, by taking or buying the warehouse receipts from E. P. Simpson, acquired thereby good title to the cotton as against appellant W. S. Mason, or the Texas Cotton Co-Operative Association.

The warehouse receipts provided on their face, "Upon the return of this receipt and the payment of all charges and liabilities due the undersigned warehouseman, as stated herein, said one bale of cotton will be delivered to the above named depositor or bearer," and the terms of the receipt are such as to bring it within the provisions of negotiable warehouse receipts, as set out in article 5613 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas of 1925.

In 1919, the Texas Legislature enacted the Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act (Rev.St.1925, art. 5612 et seq.), wherein the negotiation and rights of holders of warehouse receipts were defined by statute. It seems clear that it was the intention of this act to facilitate the use of warehouse receipts as documents of title and to protect a purchaser in good faith for value, who holds the receipts. This act was enacted in derogation of the common law, with respect to the sale of personal property, and by enacting this act it was made possible to transfer title of personal property by the transfer or negotiation of the receipts, or documents, which evidenced the goods, and the purpose of this act was to make uniform the law in regard to warehouse receipts.

It, therefore, becomes the...