McWhorter & Armor v. Moore
| Citation | 67 S.E. 115,7 Ga.App. 439 |
| Decision Date | 22 February 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,945. |
| Parties | McWHORTER & ARMOR v. MOORE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The owner of two bales of cotton deposited them in a warehouse and received therefor the usual warehouse receipt. The bailor afterwards sold the cotton to a third person, and transferred to him by indorsement the warehouse receipt, and then returned to the warehouse and obtained the cotton by falsely representing that he had lost the receipt. Subsequently the holder of the warehouse receipt presented it at the warehouse, and on demand the warehouseman paid him for the cotton. Held, the warehouseman could recover the cotton from the original bailor in trover.
Error from Superior Court, Greene County; D. W. Meadow, Judge.
Action by McWhorter & Armor against P. G. Moore. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs brings error. Reversed.
Jas Davison, for plaintiffs in error.
Park & Park, for defendant in error.
The petition as amended alleged that the defendant, P. G. Moore delivered to the plaintiffs, McWhorter & Armor, two bales of cotton for storage in their warehouse, and that the plaintiffs issued to him the usual warehouse receipt therefor. Several months afterwards the defendant returned to the warehouse and falsely represented that he had lost the receipt, and demanded the cotton. Acting on the representation that the defendant had lost the receipt, the plaintiffs delivered to him the cotton. Between the time the cotton was baled and the time it was redeliverable to the bailor, he had sold the cotton to one Perdue, and had transferred to him by indorsement the warehouse receipt. At the time of the delivery of the cotton to the defendant on his false representation, the plaintiffs had no knowledge or notice of the transfer of the receipt to Perdue. Subsequently Perdue presented the receipt duly indorsed by the defendant and the plaintiffs thereupon paid him for the cotton and took up the receipt. The plaintiffs demanded the cotton of the defendant, and the demand was refused. The defendant filed a general demurrer to the petition on the ground that no cause of action in trover is set out, and the trial court sustained the demurrer. The plaintiffs complain of this judgment.
The transfer of the warehouse receipt under the circumstances operated to vest the title to the cotton in the transferee and after that time the transferror had no interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metcalf v. Payne
... ... Co. v. Pollak, 105 Ala. 249, 16 So. 704; ... Hutchinson on Carriers [3d Ed.] § 781; McWhorter v ... Moore, 7 Ga.App. 439, 67 S.E. 115; Hunter, etc., Co ... v. Lawton Co., 12 Ga.App. 23, 76 ... ...
-
Graham v. Frazier, 32982
...of the petition it appears that the plaintiff's claim is actually based upon an alleged conversion.' In McWhorter & Armor v. Moore, 7 Ga.App. 439, 440, 67 S.E. 115, the court held, 'The mere circumstance that thereafter the warehouseman had paid the true owner for the cotton and had taken u......
-
S.H. Pope & Co. v. Union Warehouse Co.
...if the bailee were induced to surrender the chattel by some plausible deception practiced upon him by the pseudo-bailor. McWhorter v. Moore, 7 Ga.App. 439, 67 S.E. 115. In foregoing discussion we have of course assumed, as is well settled by the authorities, that a bailee-warehouseman has s......