Motley v. Southern Finishing & Warehouse Co.

• Decision Date: 17 May 1898
• Parties: MOTLEY et al. v. SOUTHERN FINISHING & WAREHOUSE CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

30 S.E. 3

122 N.C. 347

MOTLEY et al. v. SOUTHERN FINISHING & WAREHOUSE CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 17, 1898

Appeal from superior court, Guilford county; Robinson, Judge.

Action by A.H. Motley & Co. against the Southern Finishing & Warehouse Company. There was a judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

The measure of damages for property damaged while in storage is the difference between the market value of the property damaged and the property whole, on the day it was delivered to bailor.

pg3;R R. King and C.M. Stedman, for appellant.

Shaw & Scales and Bynum & Taylor, for appellees.

FURCHES J.

Plaintiffs are tobacco dealers, and defendant is a chartered warehouse company. Plaintiffs, at the solicitation of defendant deposited a quantity of leaf tobacco in defendant's warehouse, and took the following receipt therefor "Greensboro, N.C., Oct. 16, 1894. Received in store from J.S. Cobb & Co. 73 hogsheads leaf tobacco, subject only to the order hereon of J.S. Cobb & Co., and the surrender of this receipt and payment of charges. Southern Finishing & Warehouse Co. J.W. Lindau, Secretary." This tobacco remained in defendant's warehouse until the 1st of June 1895, when it was delivered to the plaintiffs in a damaged condition, and this action is for damages. It does not seem to be disputed that the tobacco was in a damaged condition when delivered to plaintiffs in June, 1895. But defendant contends that it is not liable for the damaged condition of the tobacco; that defendant is a corporated company, and by the terms of its charter it is exempt from liability for such damages, unless it expressly contracts to become liable, and this liability must be stated in its warehouse receipt. Defendant also contends that said damage to the tobacco was from defective manipulation and packing by plaintiffs, and from natural causes, after it was delivered to defendant, and not from any default or negligence on the part of defendant. Upon the trial the defendant offered in evidence an act of the legislature of North Carolina authorizing its incorporation, called its "Charter," which contains the following: "Provided, however, that said company shall not be held responsible for losses arising from the act of God or of common enemies, nor for any loss or damage not provided for in its warehouse receipt or contract, and said company may make such stipulations in its warehouse receipts and contracts as to loss or damage arising by fire or other cause as it may deem necessary and proper."

The law as to the liabilities of a public warehouseman is as well defined and understood as is that of common carriers and of public inns; and while the liabilities of warehousemen are not those of insurers, as are common carriers', they are liable for damage caused by their negligence. This law is general, and applies alike to all warehousemen, whether incorporated or not. It is the law of the land that governs the warehouse business of every individual citizen of the state, and must govern incorporations, unless they can have special contract rights granted to them that the citizens of the state do not and cannot have. This the defendant claims to have under its charter. Defendant says that all legislative power is granted to and abides in the legislature, not restricted or prohibited by the constitution, and cites several text writers and adjudications from other courts to sustain this contention. But defendant need not have gone abroad for authority to support this contention. It has been so held by this court in McDonald v. Morrow, 119 N.C., on page 670, 26 S.E 132; Commissioners v. Snuggs, 121 N.C., on page 404, 28 S.E. 539. But this does not decide the question at issue. It only brings us to the consideration of the question as to whether this provision in defendant's...