The Nashville v. Dale
| Decision Date | 12 December 1903 |
| Docket Number | 13,349 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY v. J. T. DALE et al |
Decided July, 1903.
Error from Sedgwick district court; D. M. DALE, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
LIMITATION OF ACTION--When the Statute Begins to Run in Tort. A railway company which held goods in its warehouse for a consignee at the place of their destination was induced by the wrongful act of the consignor to deliver them to a person other than the owner. Held, that the statute of limitations began to run on the cause of action existing in favor of the railway company against the wrong-doer (the consignor) at the time his tortious act was committed, and not at a later time when the company was compelled to pay to the owner and consignee the value of the goods.
Smyth & Helm, for plaintiff in error.
Houston & Brooks, for defendants in error.
OPINION
In September, 1896, the Dale & Nessly Milling Company, of Wichita, shipped a car-load of flour to Atlanta, Ga., and consigned the shipment to itself. At the same time the milling company drew a draft with bill of lading attached on the Southern Flour and Grain Company, of Atlanta, through the Fourth National Bank of Wichita, for $ 360.32. The bank forwarded the draft and bill of lading to its correspondent in Atlanta, with instructions to deliver them to the flour company upon payment of the draft. The Southern Flour and Grain Company paid the draft and took up the bill of lading, and the amount was remitted to the Wichita bank. The flour company verbally notified an agent of plaintiff in error (the railway company on whose line the flour was carried into Atlanta) that it was the owner of the flour, and requested that it be unloaded and placed in the warerooms of the railway company, which was done. The flour remained in the freight-depot of plaintiff in error for several weeks, which fact came to the knowledge of defendants in error, Dale & Nessly and the Fourth National Bank. They thereupon instructed the railway company to deliver the flour to the Atlanta Brokerage Company, well knowing that the Southern Flour and Grain Company owned it. The railway company, having no record of the verbal notice from the Southern Flour and Grain Company, and believing that Dale & Nessly and the Fourth National Bank were the only parties interested in the flour, and relying on the orders from them, delivered the flour to the Atlanta Brokerage Company.
On December 6, 1896, after the delivery of the flour to the Atlanta Brokerage Company, the Southern Flour and Grain Company presented to the railway company the bill of lading indorsed in blank, and demanded the flour, with which demand the company was unable to comply. The flour company then made a demand on the railway company for the value of the car-load of flour, and endeavored to induce the latter to pay the claim, which it refused to do. Thereafter, in March, 1899, the flour company brought an action against plaintiff in error for the sum of $ 360.32 which it had paid the defendants in error for the flour, with interest. Afterward, on July 9, 1900, while the suit was pending, the railway company, on the advice of its counsel, settled with the flour company and paid the claim. Following this, the railway company made demand on Dale & Nessly and the Fourth National Bank for the said sum of money which it had paid to the flour company. The demand being rejected, this action was brought by the railway company against them in the court below on February 24, 1902. The above facts were set out in the petition. A general demurrer was sustained thereto, and the railway company has come here by proceedings in error.
The only question necessary to be considered is whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations. It appears from the petition that the flour was received at Atlanta between September, 1896, and December 6 of the same year. The railway company, at the request of the Southern Flour and Grain Company, which we will call the consignee, after the latter had paid for the property, stored it in a warehouse where it remained for several weeks. The plaintiff in error was a bailee of, and responsible to, the owner (the flour company) therefor. (Security Trust Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 81 A.D. 426, 80 N.Y.S. 830.) The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odom v. Langston
... ... City of ... Nevada, 41 F. 587; New Holland, etc., R. Co. v. Ins ... Co., 144 Pa. 541, 22 A. 923; Nashville, etc., R. Co ... v. Dale, 68 Kan. 108, 74 P. 596. (9) The five-year ... statute of limitations, Section 1014, R.S. 1939, applies ... here, ... ...
-
Kitchener v. Williams
...Kan. 606; Ryus v. Grouble, 31 Kan. 767, 3 P. 518; Provident Loan Trust Co. v. Wolcott, 5 Kan.App. 473, 47 P. 8; Nashville, C. & St. L. Railway Co. v. Dale, 68 Kan. 108, 74 P. 596; Becker v. Porter, 119 Kan. 626, 240 P. 584; Graham v. Updegraph, 144 Kan. 45, 58 P.2d 475. He argues these opin......
-
Tedford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
...began to run December 31, 1909. The bar attached March 7, 1913, and there is no evidence of fraud or concealment. 71 Ark. 314; 68 Kan. 108; 74 P. 596; 144 197; 33 N.E. 415; 13 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 236-7. Mere ignorance of the facts does not prevent the bar. 85 Ark. 584; 61 Id. 527, 545; 84 Id. 84......
-
Christensen Grain, Inc. v. Garden City Co-op., Equity Exchange
...in an action for tort begins to run from the date of the tort and not from the date of the discovery of it. See Railway Co. v. Dale, 68 Kan. 108, 74 P. 596.' For other Kansas decisions which throw some light on the question see Manka v. Martin Metal Mfg. Co., 153 Kan. 811, 113 P.2d 1041, 13......