Plattner Implement Co. v. International Harvester Co.

Decision Date11 November 1904
Docket Number2,097.
Citation133 F. 376
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Syllabus by the Court

A lien is implied by law, without any agreement between the parties upon all the goods in the hands of a consignee, who is given the power to sell them, for the advance he makes for his consignor in conducting the business of his agency.

The various judges who sit in the same court should not attempt to overrule the decisions of each other, especially upon questions involving rules of property and practice, except for the most cogent reasons.

The foregoing rule is inapplicable to the appellate courts, whose duty it is to decide every question according to the law and the facts.

Nor does it deprive the aggrieved party of the right to review and reverse a ruling which follows an erroneous decision of another judge, but it leaves the case in the same situation in which it would have been if the judge who rendered the first decision had made the rulings which followed it.

The rejection of competent evidence to sustain a cause of action or defense, on the sole ground that no evidence in support of it is admissible is not less erroneous because all the evidence requisite to sustain the cause of action or demand was not presented.

One who has induced a court to exclude competent evidence of his opponent upon the sole ground that no evidence in support of the latter's claim is admissible may not sustain that ruling on the inconsistent ground that his opponent did not go through the useless form of offering to prove all the facts requisite to sustain his claim.

R. D Thompson (John M. Waldron, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Fred R Wright (Charles D. Hayt, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and LOCHREN, District Judge.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

The facts material to the determination of this case are few and simple. The International Harvester Company, a corporation, brought an action of replevin against the Plattner Implement Company to recover the possession of certain agricultural implements, and parts of implements. It alleged that it was the owner of this personal property, that it had demanded possession of it, and that the defendant retained it. By its answer the Plattner Company presented, among others, these three defenses: (1) That one of the mowers was sold and delivered by the harvester company, then its owner, to Nels Nelson, in October, 1902, and that the defendant had the possession of it for Nelson, and not for the plaintiff. (2) That the plaintiff obtained its title to all the property from the Plano Manufacturing Company, a corporation, in October, 1902; that the Plattner Company had received this property from the Plano Company as its commission sales agent; that at the request of the Plano Company it had advanced and paid on account of freight on goods thus delivered to it, while it was sole agent authorized to receive and to sell the property, $5,306.54, and that it had a factor's lien upon the implements in its possession for this amount. (3) That the plaintiff was indebted to the Plattner Company in the sum of $200 for storage of the goods, and that it had a lien upon them for this sum. A general demurrer was interposed to this answer, which was sustained by the resident district judge. In deciding the questions presented by the demurrer the judge expressed the opinion that, as there was no agreement between the parties to the effect that the defendant should have liens for the amounts it expended for freight and storage, none could be implied. After the order which sustained the demurrer was filed, the defendant made an amended answer, in which it pleaded its three defenses again. The plaintiff filed a reply to this answer. There was a trial before a jury and the district judge of another district, who was temporarily holding the court, and the latter judge instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant for the mower owned by Nelson, and for the plaintiff for the remainder of the property.

In the course of the trial one of the counsel for the defendant, for the purpose of proving its lien, inquired of a witness how much freight the defendant paid upon Plano machines in the years 1900 and 1901. An objection was made to this question upon the ground that the resident judge had decided on the hearing upon the demurrer that the defendant could acquire no lien for his advances for freight without an express agreement to that effect, and this objection was sustained. Counsel for the defendant offered to prove the facts which they had pleaded regarding the alleged liens for freight and storage, but like objections to this evidence were interposed and sustained. These rulings are assigned as error.

The order which sustained the demurrer was erroneous (1) because the facts that Nelson's mower had been sold by the Harvester Company, its former owner, to him, and that it was held by the implement company for him, was a complete defense to the plaintiff's action to recover that machine, and (2) because a lien in favor of a factor is implied by law without an express...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 cases
  • Boatmen's Bank of St. Louis v. Fritzlen
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 4, 1905
    ... ... Cheesman, 69 F. 785, 791, 16 C.C.A. 413, 418; ... Plattner Implement Co. v. International Harvester Co ... (C.C.A.) 133 F. 376 ... ...
  • National Ben. Life Ins. Co. v. Shaw-Walker Co., 7376.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • January 8, 1940
    ...reasons." Continental Baking Co. v. Woodring, D.C.Kan.1931, 55 F. 2d 347, 350; cf. Sanborn, J., in Plattner Implement Co. v. International Harvester Co., 8 Cir., 1904, 133 F. 376, 378. 32 16 Fletcher, Cyc. Corp. (Perm. ed.) § 7674, notes 43, 44, citing authorities including Hardy v. North B......
  • United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • December 29, 1966, reverse or overrule each other's decisions. Shreve v. Cheesman, 8 Cir., 69 F. 785, 790, 791; Plattner Implement Co. v. International Harvester Co., 8 Cir., 133 F. 376, 378, 379. The necessity of such a rule in the interest of an orderly administration of justice is clear." In Sanfor......
  • Moffett v. Commerce Trust Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1946
    ... ... Davis, 44 F. 532; Shreve v ... Cheesman, 69 F. 785; Plattner Implement Co. v ... International Harvester Co., 133 F. 376; State ex ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT