State Bank of Wilbur v. Almira Farmers' Warehouse Co.

• Citation: 123 Wash. 354,212 P. 543
• Decision Date: 01 February 1923
• Docket Number: 17195.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Parties: STATE BANK OF WILBUR v. ALMIRA FARMERS' WAREHOUSE CO.

212 P. 543

123 Wash. 354

STATE BANK OF WILBUR v. ALMIRA FARMERS' WAREHOUSE CO.

No. 17195.

Supreme Court of Washington

February 1, 1923

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Lincoln County; Jos. Sessions, Judge.

Action by the State Bank of Wilbur against the Almira Farmers' Warehouse Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

Fred B. Morrill, of Spokane, and F. H. McDermont of Davenport, for appellant.

C. M N. Love, of Wilbur, for respondent.

FULLERTON J.

Respondent the State Bank of Wilbur, brought this action against the appellant, Almira Farmers' Warehouse Company, for conversion of a quantity of wheat, resulting, on a trial before a jury, in a directed verdict in favor of the respondent for the value of the wheat. A new trial was denied, and this appeal resulted.

The wheat in question was grown by one John Hansen, and delivered to and stored with appellant by Hansen between October 20 and October 30, 1920. At that time weigh tickets were issued which, on December 20, 1920, were indorsed by Hansen and turned over to respondent in partial payment of preexisting debts. At that time Hanson owed appellant $1,378.30 for twine, sacks, hay, and coal furnished by appellant to Hansen and appellant also held Hansen's note dated July 7, 1920, for $936.81 for oats, sacks, coal, and hay previously sold. On February 22, 1921, appellant, at the request of respondent, issued two warehouse receipts for the wheat, noting on the receipts the advances. On February 25, 1921, respondent, in writing, demanded the delivery of the wheat, and on March 2d, tendered appellant the receipts, indorsed by Hansen, together with a sum sufficient to pay all charges for handling and storing the wheat, and appellant refused delivery until payment in full of the amount claimed as advances was made.

While there are a number of questions discussed in the briefs, as we view the case there are but two questions involved: First, were the weigh tickets negotiable receipts, so that the failure of appellant to note thereon the claimed advances estopped it from collecting such advances of a holder without notice; and, second, are the advances such as would entitle appellant to a lien upon the wheat?

Section 3369-2, Rem. 1915 Code, prescribing the form of warehouse receipts, reads:

'Warehouse receipts need not be in any particular form, but every such receipt must embody within its written or printed terms:

'(a) The location of the warehouse where the goods are stored.

'(b) The date of issue of the receipt.

'(c) The constructive number of the receipt.

'(d) A statement whether the goods received will be delivered to the bearer, to a specified person or to a specified person or his order.

'(e) The rate of storage charges.

'(f) A description of the goods or of the packages containing them. If the same be issued for wheat it shall specifically state the variety of wheat by name.

'(g) The signature of the warehouseman, which may be made by his authorized agent.

'(h) If the receipt is issued for goods of which the warehouseman is owner, either solely or jointly or in common with others, the fact of such ownership; and

'(i) A statement of the amount of advances made and of liabilities incurred for which the warehouseman claims a lien. If the precise amount of such advances made or of such liabilities incurred is, at the time of the issue of the receipt unknown to the warehouseman or to his agent who issues it, a statement of the fact that advances have been made, or liabilities incurred and the purpose thereof is sufficient.

'A warehouseman shall be liable to any person injured thereby, for all damages caused by the omission from a negotiable receipt of any of the terms herein required.'

The essential and fundamental requirements set out in subdivisions d, e, and g are not present on these weigh tickets, and without them the tickets cannot be considered as negotiable instruments.

As is said in 27 R. C. L. 963:

'A weigh ticket or tag given to the owner when his grain or other commodity is weighed at a warehouse preliminary to its storage, frequently contains less than is required of a warehouse receipt, and is not classed as such.'

See, also, Sinsheimer v. Whitely, 111 Cal. 378, 43 P. 1109, 52 Am. St. Rep. 192.

In First National Bank of Pullman v. Young, 20 Wash 337, 55 P. 215, it is held that an action for conversion of wheat would lie upon a memoranda similar to these weigh tickets, but the only question there before the court was the sufficiency of the complaint. There was no question of the negotiability of the...