State v. Oakley

• Decision Date: 07 May 1924
• Docket Number: 18434.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. REITMEIER v. OAKLEY et al.

225 P. 425

129 Wash. 553

STATE ex rel. REITMEIER v. OAKLEY et al.

No. 18434.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 7, 1924

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Blake, Judge.

Action by the State on the relation of J. H. Reitmeier, against S A. Oakley and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

O. C. Moore, of Spokane, for appellants.

McCarthy Edge & Lantz, of Spokane, for respondent.

HOLCOMB J.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a verdict in the sum of $2,000 against appellants as sureties on a penal bond, for an alleged conversion by their principal.

The bond is alleged in the amended complaint to have been executed pursuant to chapter 189, Laws of 1919 (Rem. C. S. § 6978 et seq.), for the operation of two grain warehouses, one at Waukon, Lincoln county, and the other at Galena, Spokane county, by the J. M. Oakley Grain Company, owned and operated by J. M. Oakley, principal on the bond.

The amended complaint sets forth 13 causes of action for damages on account of wheat stored in the months of August and September, 1920, by relator and 12 assignors, in the bonded warehouse located at Galena, the 13 causes of action aggregating over $11,000. It is charged that the wheat of the several depositors was during the months of September and October, 1920, wrongfully sold, pledged, or otherwise converted and appropriated to the use and benefit of the warehouseman; that the warehouseman was at all times insolvent and at all times unable to deliver the wheat upon demand to the holders of the warehouse receipts issued therefor to the depositors of the wheat; that Oakley and the warehouse concern were subsequently adjudged bankrupt, and that each of the claimants had presented their claims in the bankruptcy court, and had received their pro rata share of the assets distributed in that proceeding.

A demurrer to the amended complaint was overruled, upon which defendants answered, denying certain allegations, including the allegation of conversion, and alleged three affirmative defenses.

As to the first defense, it is alleged that the Galena warehouse collapsed on September 6, 1920, leaving the wheat stored there unprotected and exposed to the weather, and that it was necessary to re-store the wheat therein.

The second defense avers that no demand was ever made on those in charge of the warehouse, or upon one W. L Walker, from whom it is alleged in the first affirmative defense the Oakley Warehouse Company had purchased a quantity of wheat equal in quality and amount to the wheat stored in the warehouse at Galena, with which to redeem the warehouse receipts outstanding issued by the Oakley Grain Company, and that, if demand had been made and the warehouse receipts produced, and the storage charges paid on the wheat so stored by the depositors, wheat of equal grade, quality, and quantity would have been delivered to the holders of such warehouse receipts making demand therefor.

The third affirmative defense alleged that certain sums were received on claims presented by respondent and his assignors on account of the wheat stored, as dividends in the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against J. M. Oakley, the owner and operator of the warehouse, who passed into bankruptcy on March 16, 1921, and was discharged in bankruptcy June 9, 1921. It is also alleged that by the presentation of their claims in bankruptcy and the acceptance of their pro rata share of the dividends from the bankrupt estate respondent and his assignors elected to proceed against, and hold Oakley and his bankrupt concern as upon an implied contract, thereby waiving all other rights, demands, claims, or causes of action which they might have had either against Oakley, the Oakley Grain Company, or aginst these appellants as sureties on the bond.

The affirmative defenses of appellants were all put in issue by reply.

At the conclusion of the testimony of respondent, appellants moved to discharge the jury and enter judgment in their favor, and also moved for an instructed verdict at the conclusion of the entire case. The jury having returned a verdict against appellants, they thereafter moved for judgment n. o. v., and in the alternative for a new trial, upon the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict, that the verdict was against law, and error in law occurring and excepted to at the trial.

1. It is claimed that the demurrer should have been sustained to the amended complaint for the reasons that (a) the statute under which the bond sued upon was given is unconstitutional and void, and (b) that there was no allegation that any demand was made on the warehouseman for the delivery of the wheat as required by section 23 of the Warehouse Act, or at all.

(a) Section 19, art. 2, Constitution of Washington, is invoked, which reads:

'No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.'

The title to the statute in question is as follows:

An Act (1) for the prevention of fraud in the grain and hay trade in grain and hay products, etc.; (2) for the establishment and preservation of standards for grain and hay, grain and hay products, etc.; (3) regulating warehousemen, shippers, and buyers of such commodities; (4) defining the duties of railroads; (5) regulating track and elevator scales and track connections with industries; (6) providing penalties, etc.

It is urged that the title quoted discloses that it embraces at least six distinct, unrelated subjects; that it therefore embraces more than one subject, and, furthermore, that the provision requiring a bond is not referred to in the title.

We have always held that the constitutional provision respecting the title to enactments, from considerations of public policy, should be liberally construed, and that in deference to legislative discretion upon the subject acts will not be construed as void unless they are so beyond any reasonable doubt. Seattle v. Barto, 31 Wash. 141, 71 P. 735; Seattle Lake, etc., Co. v. Seattle Dock Co., 35 Wash. 503, 77 P. 845; Holzman v. Spokane,

91 Wash. 418, 157 P. 1086, and cases there cited. We cannot agree that the act embraces at least six distinct, unrelated subjects. The principal purpose of the act undoubtedly was to prevent frauds in the grain and hay trade and to regulate warehousemen, shippers and buyers of such commodities, and the establishment and preservation of standards, the duties of railroads with reference to track and elevator scales and track connections with warehouses, and the provision for penalties were all incidental and necessary to the entire scope of the act, in the view of the Legislature, in effectively dealing with the mischiefs sought to be prevented, and are all thoroughly germane to the purposes.

The fact that a bond is required of warehousemen is not necessary to be mentioned in the title. A statement of the general scope of the act is all that is required, and details of all that the act shall require are not necessary to be stated. Requiring the warehouseman to furnish a bond for the protection of persons storing property therein is incidental and germane to the regulation of warehousemen, and to the prevention of frauds in the grain and hay trade. It is not necessary that the title of an act be a complete index of its provisions, or refer to every detail of the subject regulated. State v. Sharpless, 31 Wash. 191, 71 P. 737, 96 Am. St. Rep. 893; Seattle & Lake, etc., Co. v. Seattle Dock Co., supra; State v. Ames, 47 Wash. 328, 92 P. 137; Maxwell v. Lancaster, 81 Wash. 602, 143 P. 157; Archibald v. N. P. R. Co., 108 Wash. 97, 183 P. 95; 25 R. C. L. 885.

We are therefore of the opinion that the statute is not void for defects in the title.

(b) As to the contention that, because of the omission of a demand upon the warehouseman for delivery of the wheat, the complaint and the evidence is defective, under section 7001, Rem. C. S., which is cited and quoted. That section provides in effect that, upon the return of the receipt to the proper warehouseman, properly indorsed, and upon payment or tender of all advances and legal charges, grain, etc., of the grade, quality, and amount named therein shall be delivered to the holder of such receipt within 48 hours after facilities have been provided for receiving the same. If, upon such demand and tender, the warehouseman fails to deliver such grain, etc., the person entitled thereto may recover the same by an action. It is contended that (quoting Salo v. Pacific Coast Casualty Co., 95 Wash. 109, 163 P. 384, L. R. A. 1917D, 613):

'In a statutory bond, in order to determine the extent of the liability, the provisions of the act under which the bond is given are read into and become a part of such bond.'

The statute relied upon does not change the law that a warehouseman is a bailee (27 R. C. L. 978); that those who store wheat in a warehouse become tenants in common of the mass, each having an undivided interest in the mass, and, where, for any cause not occasioned by the fault of the depositors, the amount of the grain on hand becomes less than that for which there are outstanding receipts, the depositor has no right as against other depositors or more than a pro rata share (27 R. C. L. 979).

The evidence shows that Oakley, the principal shortly after the deposit of the wheat by the persons here concerned in the warehouse, shipped the greater part of it to White-Dulany Company. He...