Security Storage & Trust Co. v. Denys
| Decision Date | 14 January 1913 |
| Citation | 86 A. 613,119 Md. 330 |
| Parties | SECURITY STORAGE & TRUST CO. v. DENYS. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; John J. Dobler, Judge.
Action by F. Ward Denys against the Security Storage & Trust Company, a corporation. From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and BRISCOE, PEARCE, BURKE, THOMAS PATTISON, and STOCKBRIDGE, JJ.
Leigh Bonsal, of Baltimore, for appellant. Charles Clagett, of Washington, D. C., and William L. Marbury, of Baltimore, for appellee.
In the year 1907 the appellee, who is a clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church, was rector of St. Mary's Church at Roland Park, Baltimore county. His health was bad, and it became necessary for him for that reason to relinquish his work. The appellant is a corporation engaged in the storage business in the city of Baltimore, and the appellee, in the summer of 1907, entered into a contract with it whereby it undertook to remove for compensation all his household effects from the rectory and store them in its warehouse. The appellee left Baltimore, and, after traveling in this country and in Europe, returned in the fall of 1910 and took up his residence in Washington, D. C. When his household effects which had been in the possession of the appellant during his absence, were delivered at his residence in Washington, under the circumstances hereafter stated, it was found that some of them were badly damaged. It was also discovered that some articles were not delivered, and they seem to have been lost. The appellant denied liability for the loss and damaged articles, and the appellee sued it in the superior court of Baltimore city and recovered a judgment for $523. The appeal before us was taken by the defendant from that judgment.
The amended declaration, upon which the case was tried, contained four counts. The first count charged that the defendant was engaged in the storage business, and that for a consideration it agreed to store and safely keep in its warehouse in Baltimore city certain goods and chattels, etc., of the plaintiff until the same should be called for by the plaintiff, and then safely deliver the same to the plaintiff at his request; but, through its neglect to take proper care of said goods and chattels while the same were in its warehouse, they became greatly broken, damaged, and destroyed, and some of them were lost. The second count charged negligence on the part of the defendant in hauling the goods to a railroad car in Baltimore city in pursuance of its undertaking with the plaintiff, and in loading the goods in the car, and, as a result of that negligence, the goods were damaged and some lost. The third count is here transcribed: "And for that, in the early part of December, in the year 1910, the defendant, for compensation, undertook with the plaintiff, in compliance with his instructions, to forward to him at Washington certain goods and chattels, comprising sundry articles of silverware, furniture, china, mats, and other household effects belonging to the said plaintiff, which the defendant had on storage in its warehouse in Baltimore city; that the plaintiff positively commanded and instructed the defendant to engage a 40-foot car on the Pennsylvania Railroad line and ship the said goods and chattels by means of the same to him in Washington; that the defendant acted upon such undertaking, but not regarding its duty to the said plaintiff, afterwards in the early part of the month of December aforesaid, at Baltimore city aforesaid, in disobedience of the plaintiff's orders, did not ship the said goods and chattels or any part of the same by means of a 40-foot car on the Pennsylvania Railroad line, but wrongfully and improperly shipped all of said goods and chattels in two smaller cars on the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad line; that, by and through the said wrongful and improper conduct of the said defendant and its servants, the said goods and chattels became and were greatly broken, damaged, and destroyed, and some of them lost, and the plaintiff sustained great loss thereby." The fourth count charged that in 1910 the defendant undertook to carry said goods from its warehouse in Baltimore city to the plaintiff's home in Washington, and that, through its negligence in and about the transportation of the goods, they were damaged and some lost. The main questions in the case arise under the first and third counts.
It will be observed that the cause of action alleged in the first count is the breach of duty by the defendant in its capacity as warehouseman, and in the third count is the defendant's violation or disobedience of the plaintiff's directions as to the shipment of his goods. The case was tried upon the joinder of issue upon the general issue pleas.
The evidence adduced at the trial on behalf of the plaintiff tended to establish the following facts: That the appellant undertook to remove, and did remove, all the plaintiff's household effects from his residence at Roland Park, and that the following articles were lost, and have never been returned, viz., a bas-relief by Cooper, valued at $250; a bronze bas-relief; a pair of large black andirons, and all of the kitchen utensils, a coffee grinder, a silver chafing dish, a complete set of china dishes and aluminum cook vessels, and an ice cream freezer; that when delivered, a dining room table, a center table, a large oak table, 16 dining room chairs upholstered in leather, carved chairs, brass beds, a leather lounge, carved book cases, desks, chairs, china closets, etc., were found to be seriously damaged; that, when these articles were delivered into the possession of the defendant, they were in good condition and were not damaged in any way; that the injury to the leather lounge had been done at the warehouse of the defendant; that the articles were not removed in a careful manner from the appellee's residence by the appellant's servants; that some of the things had been struck against the walls and banister and dropped on the floor, but that the removal of the goods by the Security Storage Company of Washington from the railroad's station in that city to the appellee's home was carefully done, and there is no evidence in the record to show that any of the losses or injuries complained of could be attributed to the Washington Company; that some pieces of the damaged furniture had been repaired at a cost of $80, but that they were not as good after the repairs as they were before the injury.
The plaintiff testified that his positive instructions to the defendant were to ship his goods to him in one large car over the Pennsylvania Railroad. His explanation of why he wished them shipped in a single car on that road was as follows:
The defendant shipped the goods in two smaller cars over the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad consigned to the plaintiff in the care of the Security & Storage Company of Washington, and sent the bill of lading to that company, with instructions not to deliver the goods until it was paid the amount of the defendant's bill, to wit, $200. When the furniture reached his home, the plaintiff noticed its damaged condition and protested against paying the bill, but was compelled to do so before the Washington Company would make delivery. There was no contention that the plaintiff ever directed, assented to, or acquiesced in the shipment in two cars over the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad.
The plaintiff requested William H. Houghton, an experienced and competent expert in every department of the furniture business, to come to his house and examine his goods. He pointed out to Mr. Houghton each piece of the damaged property, which Houghton examined and valued in its damaged condition, and at the trial he testified to the value of each damaged article. He was present in court and heard the plaintiff's testimony as to the character of the valued goods and their condition at the time they were delivered...
To continue reading
Request your trial