Southern Express Company v. Dickson

Decision Date01 October 1876
Citation24 L.Ed. 285,94 U.S. 549
PartiesSOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY v. DICKSON
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Alabama.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Clarence A. Seward, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Conway Robinson and Mr. Leigh Robinson, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

The case, in brief, is this: The agent of the plaintiff Dickson delivered to the express company at Greensboro', N. C., fifty-two boxes of tobacco, to be shipped to Columbia, S. C. The boxes were consigned to Trent & Rea at that place, and the delivery to the company for shipment was made by Trent, one of that firm, who at the time informed the company that the tobacco was the property of the plaintiff. A written receipt was given by the company in the usual form. The boxes never left Greensboro', but were, without authority of the owner, sold by Trent to one Mendenhall, to whom, by the order of Trent, they were delivered by the company at Greensboro'.

The court charged the jury, that, if they believed from the evidence that the tobacco was, at the time of its delivery to the defendant, the property of the plaintiff, and that fact was known to the defendant or its agent, though by the receipt given for it Trent & Rea were the consignees thereof, and the defendant might lawfully deliver the said tobacco to the consignees at Columbia, S. C., the defendant was not authorized to deliver the same to the consignees, or either of them, or to any other person by the order of either of them, at Greensboro', N. C., the place of shipment; and such delivery at Greensboro', N. C., without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff, would not discharge the defendant from liability therefore to the plaintiff. To which charge of the court the defendant then and there excepted.

There was a verdict for the plaintiff, on which judgment was rendered, and the defendant sued out this writ of error.

By various requests to charge, the defendant presented the point in different forms, but the question of law is clearly indicated by the charge given. The express company is not liable in this action, if, upon the order of Trent, it was justified in delivering the property at the place of its intended shipment. If it was not so justified, but was bound to transport and deliver as agreed in its receipt, or to deliver to the owner, then it is liable, and the judgment should be affirmed.

We are not called upon to question the proposition that a consignee of goods is for many purposes deemed to be the owner of them, and may maintain an action for their non-delivery. 1 Pars. Ship. 269. In the case before us, the proof was given; and the jury found that the goods did not belong to the consignees, but were the property of the shipper, and that this was known to the carrier. The qu stion is, rather, where it is known that the goods are the property of the shipper, and have been shipped by him for delivery to the consignees as his agents at a distant place, can the carrier deliver the goods to such consignees or to their order at another place, or without starting them on their journey? We think the rule is, that, where the consignor is known to the carrier to be the owner, the carrier must be understood to contract with him only, for his interest, upon such terms as he dictates in regard to the delivery, and that the consignees are to be regarded simply as agents selected by him to receive the goods at a place indicated. Where he is an agent merely, the rule is different. This is illustrated by the case of Thompson v. Fargo, 49 N. Y. 185. Thompson had, as the agent of White, collected certain moneys belonging to White, and, inclosing them in a package directed to White at Terre Haute, Ind., sent the package from Decatur, in the same State, by the express company. Various attempts were made to deliver the package to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Bonds-Foster Lumber Co. v. Northern P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 27 de maio de 1909
    ...to the consignee. Lawrence v. Minturn, 58 U.S. 100, 15 L.Ed. 58; The Sally Magee, 3 Wall. 457, 18 L.Ed. 197; Southern Express Co. V. Dickson, 94 U.S. 549, 24 L.Ed. 285; Nebraska Meal Mills v. St. Louis, S. & W. R. Co., Ark. 169, 41 S.W. 810, 38 L. R. A. 358 ; 62 Am. St. Rep. 183; Orange Co.......
  • McNeill v. Wabash Railway Company
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 3 de maio de 1921
    ...... be the owner, and when it was not found at the destination to. deliver where found. Southern Express Co. v. Dickson, 94 U.S. 459, 24 L.Ed. 285; 1 Hutch. on. Carriers, sec. 177; Smith, v. ......
  • Estherville Produce Co. v. Chicago, RI & PR Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 5 de abril de 1932
    ...Nat. Bank v. Tremont Trust Co. (C. C. A. 1) 4 F.(2d) 219; In re Taub (C. C. A. 2) 7 F.(2d) 447, 451, 452; Southern Express Co. v. Dickson, 94 U. S. 549, 24 L. Ed. 285; Emmons Coal Mining Co. v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. (C. C. A. 3) 3 F.(2d) 525. A diversion in transit, at the direction of the p......
  • McNeill v. Wabash Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 3 de maio de 1921
    ...governing the question under discussion is tersely stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Southern Express Co. v. Dickson, 94 U. S. 550, 24 L. Ed. 285. Said case is decisive of this question. The court there "Where it is known that the goods are the property of the ......
  • 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