Nanson v. Jacob

• Decision Date: 18 April 1882
• Citation: 12 Mo.App. 125
• Parties: JOHN T. NANSON ET AL., Respondents, v. ROBERT JACOB ET AL., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

12 Mo.App. 125

JOHN T. NANSON ET AL., Respondents,

v.ROBERT JACOB ET AL., Appellants.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Apr. 18, 1882.

1. A carrier who does not receive the goods from the preceding carrier under and by virtue of the original contract for through transportation, is not a connecting carrier.

2. A carrier who delivers goods for a tortious bailee, without notice that the bailee's possession is wrongful, is not liable to the owner for a conversion.

APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court, THAYER, J.

Reversed and remanded.

S. M. BRECKENRIDGE, with whom is M. F. WATTS, for the appellants.

ALBERT ARNSTEIN, for the respondents.

LEWIS, P. J., delivered the opinion of the court.

In December, 1879, S. & F. Uhlman, hop dealers, resident in the city of New York, sold one hundred and fifteen bales of hops to defendant Robert Jacob, a St. Louis dealer, and shipped them over the Red Transit Line, whereof the Wabash Railway was the terminal connecting road. The bill of lading was attached to a draft for the purchase-money, which was sent to a bank in St. Louis, with instructions to deliver the bill of lading to Jacob upon his paying the draft.

About that time Jacob became insolvent, and failed to pay the draft, which, with the bill of lading, was afterwards returned to New York.

The goods were consigned to the order of the Uhlmans, with instructions to the carrier to notify Jacob. Upon their arrival at East St. Louis, the Wabash Railway sent a notice to Jacob, to the effect that the hops, as described, consigned to him, were ready for delivery, on payment of the freight and charges. The notice further stated that, if the hops were not removed within forty-eight hours, there would be an additional charge for storage. On the back of the notice was a blank order, to be signed by Jacob and filled in with the name of the person to whom the hops were to be delivered. This was addressed to “Agent, Wabash Ry.” Jacob thereupon bargained with defendant, the St. Louis Transfer Company, to haul the hops from the depot and deliver them to the Schneider Brewing Company, in St. Louis. He filled and signed the order accordingly, and gave it to the transfer company with a check for payment of the freight-bill held by the Wabash Railway. Upon presentation of the order, and payment of the freight-bill for transportation from New York, the Wabash Railway delivered the hops to the transfer company, with a “manifest” showing the amount of the freight-bill. In this paper the hops were mentioned as being consigned “to the order of S. & F. Uhlman.” They were eventually delivered to the Schneider Brewing Company. The Uhlmans afterwards assigned whatever claim they might have on account of the foregoing transactions, to the plaintiffs.

This proceeding is in the nature of an action of trover, to recover damages for the unlawful conversion of the hops. It was instituted against Jacob, the Transfer Company, and the Wabash Railway, but was dismissed before the trial, as to the Wabash Railway. There was a verdict for $4,186.30 against the other defendants.

Part of the plaintiff's argument for holding the St. Louis Transfer Company liable in this action, assumes that it was a joint tortfeasor with defendant Jacob in wrongfully taking possession of the hops while they were still the property of the Uhlmans, upon whose order, only, there could be a proper delivery. Another part of the same argument makes the Transfer Company a connecting carrier in the entire transportation, and therefore bound by the terms of the bill of lading, and liable for a misdelivery. The two positions are inconsistent. If the Transfer Company was a wrongdoer in receiving the goods, then it could not have been a connecting carrier, because, in that capacity, it would have had a perfect right to receive them. If, on the other hand, it was a connecting carrier, then no complaint can be made of its taking possession of the goods, whether upon the order of an unauthorized person or otherwise. The simple truth is, that the Transfer Company either was a connecting carrier or it was not. If it was such, then it became, by the terms of the bill of lading, a party to that contract, and might be held liable for a delivery not in accordance with its conditions. If it was not so, then its undertaking was a wholly independent one, and its responsibility must be measured by the general law of common carriers, without any reference to the bill of lading, or any conditions of the antecedent through transportation.

We think the testimony in the case clearly establishes the fact that the transfer company was not a connecting carrier. A connecting carrier is one whose route, not being the first one, lies...