Strange v. Planters' Gin Company
| Decision Date | 02 February 1920 |
| Docket Number | 156 |
| Citation | 218 S.W. 188,142 Ark. 100 |
| Parties | STRANGE v. PLANTERS' GIN COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; George R. Haynie, Judge; affirmed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Peter Davis brought separate suits in the circuit court against the Planters' Gin Company and the Garland Gin Company to recover the value of five bales of cotton claimed to have been lost in the gin yards of the defendants.
The facts in the two cases being the same, the suits were consolidated and tried together. The plaintiff had five bales of cotton ginned by the defendants and received from the defendants a receipt for each bale so ginned. It is claimed that these receipts constituted a contract of bailment for hire, and they are the basis of the two suits.
The defendants denied that the tickets constituted a contract of bailment for hire, but alleged that they were issued solely for the benefit of the customers for the purpose of identifying their cotton. Peter Davis died, and the suits were revived in the name of a special administrator of his estate.
A McLane, a tenant on the farm of Peter Davis, carried a bale of seed cotton to the Planters' Gin Company and had it ginned. The gin company issued to him the following receipt:
McLane turned the receipt over to Peter Davis. Four other bales of cotton were carried from the farm of Peter Davis to the gin of the defendants, and, after they had been ginned, similar receipts were issued, which were also turned over to Peter Davis. After the cotton was ginned it was left in the gin yards of the defendants. When Peter Davis wished to sell the cotton, he went to the gin yards of the defendants to get it and found the cotton had been lost. The defendants refused to make good the loss. Hence this lawsuit.
On the part of the defendants it was shown that these receipts were given to the customers for the purpose of identifying their cotton which had been ginned by the defendants. After the cotton was ginned it was rolled out on the cotton yard of the defendants, and the customers could go there and get the cotton at any time without any demand or notice to the defendants. The cotton was weighed and tagged by the defendants, and these receipts were given to the customers solely for the purpose of identifying the cotton. The cotton after it was ginned was left in the yards of defendants until the customers came and hauled it away. There was a fence around the gin yards to keep out the stock, and the gates to the yards were kept closed for the same purpose.
Both parties asked for peremptory instructions, and the court instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants.
Judgment affirmed.
M. E Sanderson, for appellant.
It was sufficient under the facts for appellant to show a delivery of the cotton and a failure to return it to entitle him to recover. The relation of bailor and bailee was established and when appellees issued the tickets they accepted the sole custody of the cotton and it became their duty to exercise due care and diligence to protect and keep it. 134 Ark. 76. The court erred in directing a verdict for appellees.
Will Steel, for appellees.
1. The tickets did not constitute contracts of bailment but were mere identification tickets. 134 Ark. 76 is not in point. 107 Ark. 76.
2. There is no bill of exceptions in this case. 109 Ark. 124.
OPINIONHART, J. (after stating the facts).
Counsel for the plaintiffs claim that the defendants were bailees for hire and that the court erred in instructing a verdict for the defendants. They rely on the case of Phoenix Cotton Oil Co. v. Pettus & Buford, 134 Ark. 76, 203 S.W. 19, in which the court held that a bailee for hire in exclusive possession of the property must explain its loss before it devolves upon the bailor to show that it was lost through the bailee's negligence. We cannot agree with counsel in this contention, and think that the receipts are essentially different in the two cases. In that case the bale of cotton contained the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDonald Land Co. v. Shapleigh Hardware Co.
...of the evidence. He is not liable, even as a gratuitous bailee. 101 Ark. 81; 103 Ark. 12; 52 Ark. 364; Story on Bailment, § 23; 142 Ark. 100. 4. creditor's bill was properly dismissed in so far as it sought to cancel the deed to the homestead. Creditors cannot complain at the conveyance of ......
-
Carter v. Ryburn Ford Sales, Inc.
...verdict,' the sole question for our determination is whether there was substantial evidence to support the judgment. Strange v. Planters' Gin Co., 142 Ark. 100, 218 S.W. 188; Casteel v. K. Lee Williams Theatres, Inc., 221 Ark. 935, 256 S.W.2d 732. I submit that the testimony of Bryant const......
-
Scoles v. Weaver
...gratutious bailee, and answerable only for gross negligence. 144 Ark. 146; 23 Ark. 61; 52 Ark. 564; 103 Ark. 12; 42 Ark. 200; 97 Ark. 290; 142 Ark. 100; 67 Ark. 284; S.W. 532 (Ark.). OPINION HART, J., (after stating the facts). Where a cause is tried before the court, the finding of a court......
-
McDonald Land Co. v. Shapleigh Hardware Co.
...resulted to the Shapleigh Hardware Company. Bill McDonald, Jr., was not liable, therefore, as a gratuitous bailee. Strange v. Planters' Gin Co., 142 Ark. 100, 218 S. W. 188; Baker v. Bailey, 103 Ark. 12, 145 S. W. 532, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1085. The court, therefore, erred in rendering judgm......