Prince v. Alabama State Fair

• Decision Date: 11 April 1895
• Citation: 106 Ala. 340,17 So. 449
• Parties: PRINCE v. ALABAMA STATE FAIR.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 449

106 Ala. 340

PRINCE v. ALABAMA STATE FAIR.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 11, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Jefferson county; James J. Banks, Judge.

Action by Bettie H. Prince against the Alabama State Fair to recover the value of a picture. There was a judgment in the justice court for plaintiff, and, upon appeal to the circuit court judgment was rendered for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

The complaint filed in the circuit court contained two counts,-one in trover, and the other in case. The evidence as shown by the bill of exceptions, is practically without conflict, except as to the value of the picture, and it was substantially as follows: On October 17, 1891, the plaintiff packed, and forwarded by express, at her own expense, to the Alabama State Fair, the defendant, the painting involved in this controversy, for the purpose of being used by the defendant for exhibition at its fair, under a contract with the defendant that after such purpose of exhibition had been fulfilled the defendant should repack, reship, and return the painting to her. The defendant's secretary, whose duty it was to attend to the repacking and shipment of the exhibits after the close of the fair, disclaimed in his testimony any personal knowledge of the contract between the defendant and the plaintiff, but testified that it was the usual practice that, when exhibits were sent at the exhibitors' expense the fair repacked them, and reshipped them to the owners when the fair was closed. The picture involved in this controversy was received by the defendant, was awarded a premium, but has never been returned to the plaintiff. There was evidence introduced that the defendant employed, during the progress of its fair, a sufficient number of watchmen to guard the exhibits, and after the close of the fair a sufficient number of laborers to repack and reship, with reasonable progress the exhibits to their owners. The plaintiff and another witness, who testified that he was a connoisseur of fine art, fixed the value of the picture at $100; and an amateur artist, introduced as a witness for the defendant, testified that it was not worth more than $25 or $30. The cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury, and upon the hearing of all the evidence the court rendered judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals, and assigns as error the rendition of this judgment.

H. K. White, for appellant.

Ward & John, for appellee.

BRICKELL C.J.

The primary question presented is, what was the relation created by the transaction into which the parties entered, and what were their respective rights, duties, and liabilities springing from the relation? The transaction was a bailment. The painting was intrusted to the defendant, upon its invitation, for a special object or purpose, upon a contract that, when the object or purpose was accomplished, the painting would be returned or redelivered to the plaintiff. Story, Bailm. § 2. The insistence of the counsel of the defendant is that, though there was a bailment of the painting, the bailment was of the class known as "naked gratuitous deposits," accepted as matter of mere favor or courtesy, from which the defendant was not entitled to benefit, or to recompense for any duty the bailment may have involved. If this be the true character of the transaction, the conclusion follows, which is deduced, that the defendant owed to the plaintiff the duty of slight care only in the keeping, preservation, and restoration of the painting, and is answersable only for gross negligence or bad faith, to which the loss of the painting is directly traceable. 2 Kent, Comm. 560; Story, Bailm. § 62; Schouler, Bailm. § 14. But if the bailment was made at the instance or on the invitation of the defendant, because of benefits, direct or contingent, it was expected would accrue, or on a contract, express or implied, having a legal consideration, it was not gratuitous. More properly, it may be termed "lucrative"; and the duty of the defendant was the exercise of ordinary care in the keeping, preservation, and restoration of the painting, and for ordinary neglect in the performance of the duty the defendant is answerable. 2 Kent, Comm. 565; Moore v. Mayor, etc., 1 Stew. (Ala.) 286; Seals v. Edmondson, 71 Ala. 509. The transaction has in it the essential elements and characteristics of a lucrative, as distinguished from a mere gratuitous, bailment,-a bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor. It originated in the general proposal of the defendant, to all persons having articles deemed worthy of exhibition, to intrust them to the defendant for that purpose, promising redelivery when the exhibition was closed. The proposal, though general in its terms, became a special contract with each person sending articles for exhibition, when the articles were received and accepted by the defendant. Society v. Brumfiel, 102 Ind. 146, 1 N.E. 382; 1 Whart. Cont. § 24; Pol. Cont. 174. The contract was supported by a legal consideration,-the detriment and inconvenience to which the sender was subjected, at the instance of the defendant, in the transmission of the article, and the benefit, though indirect and contingent, which the defendant contemplated would accrue from the exhibition. In Society v. Brumfiel, supra,-a case not distinguishable from the present,-it was said by Elliott, J.: "The bailment was not a gratuitous one, for the reason that the exhibition of the gun, in response to the invitation contained in the advertisement of the appellant, constituted a consideration for the undertaking. It may be true that both parties derived a benefit, but this did not strip the contract of its character,-that of a bailment for reward. The reward was not, it is true, in money, but it was nevertheless a reward in the form of an act performed at the request of the bailee. An association which invites persons to supply articles to enable it to conduct an exhibition receives some consideration from the person who responds to the invitation by placing articles in its care for exhibition." In determining whether a bailment is gratuitous or lucrative,-a bailment without compensation or benefit to the bailee, or from which he is to derive benefit or profit,-the inquiry is not directed to the character or certainty of the benefit or...