Rochette v. Terminal R. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 07 December 1920
• Docket Number: No. 15103.,15103.
• Parties: ROCHETTE v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

225 S.W. 1019

ROCHETTE v. TERMINAL R. ASS'N OF ST. LOUIS.

No. 15103.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 7, 1920.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Estella Rochette against the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Thomas B. Crews and Walter N. Davis, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

J. L. Howell and W. M. Hezel, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

BIGGS, C.

This is an action for conversion against a warehouseman or bailee for hire for refusing to deliver upon demand a traveling grip containing personal property consisting mostly of wearing apparel. A jury being waived, the cause was submitted to the court as a trier of the facts, and judgment was rendered for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

On January 12, 1914, plaintiff checked the grip from a point on the Missouri Pacific Railway in Missouri to St. Louis on a half fare ticket purchased for her minor son, the plaintiff riding on a commutation ticket, on which, under the rules and regulations of the company, baggage could not be checked The baggage arrived at the St. Louis Union Station on the same day, where it was delivered to the defendant, which is a terminal company having charge of the station. Plaintiff accompanied the baggage on the same train, but did not call for it until the 14th day of January, when she was first told that there were storage charges due, but, upon a thorough search being made the grip could not be found, and was never thereafter located.

Defendant admitted the baggage was delivered to it and placed in its baggageroom, where it had about 200 employés. It was shown that defendant, in addition to its regular employés, kept four special watchmen, two on duty in the daytime, and two at night, for the purpose of guarding and watching baggage; that the baggage was stored in an inclosed room, and that during the course of a year defendant handled about 1,750,000 parcels of baggage, and had only 4 or 5 of such pieces stolen during the previous year. It appeared that at the time in question a former employé of defendant was arrested on a charge of stealing baggage, and who confessed that he had stolen other baggage, but it was not shown that the former employé stole plaintiff's grip.

In cases of this sort, where the bailor sues the bailee for refusal to deliver goods under the contract of bailment, the gist of the cause is negligence. The plaintiff in such a case has the affirmative of the issue. However, plaintiff being at a disadvantage in obtaining information of the cause of the loss, the law considers that he makes out a prima facie case of negligence by proving the bailment and a failure on the part of the bailee to return the property on demand. Plaintiff so established a prima facie case, and it then became the duty of defendant to...