Schumacher v. Eby
| Decision Date | 01 May 1855 |
| Citation | 24 Pa. 521 |
| Parties | Schumacher versus Eby. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Franklin, for plaintiff in error.—The sale of the tobacco to the plaintiff whilst in transit was not void for want of an endorsement by Hiett of the bill of lading from McConnellsville, Ohio, to Pittsburgh. The rule requiring possession of personal property in order to vest title, is not applicable where the vendor is not in possession of the property at the time of the sale; but a sale of it in the hands of a bailee is good: 7 Barr 89, Linton v. Butz; Story on Bailments 282; so of a ship at sea: 3 Taunt. 177. The endorsement of the bill of lading was not essential. The principal office of a bill of lading is to afford evidence of the contract of delivery by the transporter. As ancillary to that, it is evidence of the right of possession in the person to whom the goods are by its terms deliverable. It is not a negotiable instrument, nor does the assignment of it necessarily import a transfer of the property in the goods embraced in it. See Lord LOUGHBOROUGH'S opinion in Lickbarrow v. Mason, 1 H. Black. 357.
In sea vessels bound for foreign ports, bills of lading are usually taken deliverable to the order of the shipper or his assigns: in such case the owner endorses the bills to his consignee: but a different practice prevails on our canals and western waters, where the name of the consignee at the port of delivery is inserted as the person to whom the goods are to be delivered. In such case no other person than the consignee can endorse the bills. But even the endorsement of a consignee who is the owner is not necessary to a valid transfer of the goods. Per GIBBS, J., in Meyer v. Sharpe, 1 Eng. Com. L. Rep. 24; also Blackburn on Sales 275, 295. In this case the bill of lading was deliverable to Johnston, or assigns, and no other than he could endorse it. Cited 2 Camp. 36. When the goods were delivered to Johnston at Pittsburgh, the bill of lading which he received had performed its office; and when the receipt or bill of lading received by him was sent to and received by Schumacher, the latter had all the evidence of ownership, and the right of possession.
But this would have been the case if there had been no bill of sale or assignment of the goods. By virtue of his advances he had a property in the tobacco the instant it was consigned to him, and delivered to the transporters at Pittsburgh, who became his agents: 9 Eng. Com. Law 300, Anderson v. Clark; Abbott on Shipping 333; 12 Barb. 310, Dowes v. Cobb. The rights of the parties are to be determined as they existed at the time of attachment: 6 Wharton 53, Hoofsmith v. Cope.
Breneman and Stevens, for defendant in error.—The tobacco was shipped to Hiett's own order, and the bills of lading were not assigned or endorsed by him. As a general rule actual delivery is essential to the validity of a sale of personal property. But when goods sold are at sea, actual delivery being impossible, the law is content with constructive delivery, which is accomplished by an endorsement or assignment of the bill of lading. A bill of lading is like a bill of exchange, and the property it refers to passes by endorsement of it, but not by delivery without endorsement: 1 C. & P. 53, (12 E. C. L.); 7 M. & Gr. 678, (49 E. C. L.); 7 Ad. & El. 29, (34 E. C. L.); 5 Whar. 205, Bell v. Moss. In this case the bill of lading was sent to the plaintiff as consignee, or factor, and not as owner, and a bill of lading sent to one as consignee conveys no legal title to the property, though the consignor be indebted to the consignee: 2 W. C. C. R. 403; Id. 287; 7 M. & Gr. 678; 7 Ad. & Ell. 29; 1 C. & P. 53; 3 B. & C. 423.
By the Act of 14th April, 1834, it is enacted, 1. Whenever any person intrusted with merchandise and having authority to sell or consign the same, shall ship or otherwise transmit it to any other person, the latter shall have a lien for money advanced or negotiable security given on the faith of the consignment to the person for whose use or in whose name the merchandise was transmitted, &c.
Looking at the evidence and the charge together, we find that the instruction to the jury was that, when one has advanced money for another on the faith of an engagement that goods should be consigned for sale to meet the advances, and they are so consigned through the medium of a common carrier, to be delivered to the lender, and a bill of lading is sent to him accordingly, and while they are on their way the lender purchases the full title to them in part payment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Co.
...the title of the goods to the assignee or indorsee: Gates v. R.R. Co., 42 Neb. 379; Pollard v. Reardon, 65 Fed. Repr. 848; Schumacher v. Eby, 24 Pa. 521; Transportation Co. v. Steele, 70 Pa. 188; Hieskell v. Bank, 89 Pa. 155; Bache v. Philips, 155 Pa. 103. Indeed, it has also been repeatedl......
-
Perlman & Co. v. Sartorius & Co.
...was Reading in this state, but a delivery to the carrier in Baltimore must be regarded as a delivery under the contract. In Schumacher v. Eby, 24 Pa. 521, we said: "A of goods to a carrier, in pursuance of a contract of sale or lien, is a delivery to the vendee or creditor so far as to pass......
- Dooley v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co.
-
Whatley v. Weston, Dodson & Co., Inc.
... ... fourth, notice was expressly provided for in the contract ... Title ... to the eighteen cars of coal passed to Frame, Friend & ... Stineman, Inc., upon shipment from the mines: P. & R.R.R ... v. Weirman, 88 Pa. 264; Schumacher v. Eby, 24 ... Pa. 521; Bacharach v. Freight Line, 133 Pa. 414; ... Dannemiller v. Kirkpatrick, 201 Pa. 218 ... Before ... MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, KEPHART, SADLER and ... SCHAFFER, JJ ... [289 ... Pa. 38] MR. JUSTICE SCHAFFER: ... ...