Thompson v. New York Storage Co.

• Citation: 97 Mo. App. 135,70 S.W. 938
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 25 November 1902
• Parties: THOMPSON v. NEW YORK STORAGE CO.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL>

70 S.W. 938

97 Mo. App. 135

THOMPSON v. NEW YORK STORAGE CO.^*

Court of Appeals at St. Louis. Missouri.

November 25, 1902.

COMMON CARRIER — WHAT CONSTITUTES — LIEN.

1. Under the meager testimony in this case bearing on the question, we are not prepared to say the trial court erred in holding that the defendant was not a common carrier and entitled to a lien on goods hauled by it as such, especially as no declarations of law defining a common carrier were requested. Defendant's business was the storage of personal property, and moving household effects from one part of the city of St. Louis to another.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Wm. Zachritz, Judge.

Action by M. M. Thompson against the New York Storage Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. N. Moore, for appellant. T. L. Anderson, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

Appellant is a corporation whose business is storing and moving goods for hire in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff hired the concern to move her household effects from one house in said city to another, a contract being made by which the goods were to be hauled in two loads for $11; an extra dollar above the usual price being charged, for overloading. When the vans arrived at plaintiff's residence, she refused to pay for the hauling because the top of a table was cracked. Some of the articles were retained by the defendant as security for its charge, and this action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of the retained property. Before the trial in the justice's court, defendant paid the accrued costs, and tendered the articles to plaintiff on condition of her paying its bill, but the tender was declined; and there is evidence to show the goods were damaged while in the defendant's possession.

The defense is that the storage company is a common carrier, and had a lien for its charge, which entitled it to retain the property until plaintiff paid. The testimony is meager, but we think appellant was a private carrier, or ordinary bailee for hire, not bound to serve every one without discrimination. Faucher v. Wilson, 68 N. H. 338, 38 Atl. 1002, 39 L. R. A. 431, and cases cited; Nugent v. Smith, 1 C. P. Div. 19, 423; Piedmont Mfg. Co. v. Columbia & G. R. Co., 19 S. C. 353; Fish v. Chapman, 2 Ga. 353, 46 Am. Dec. 393. Whether a person was a common carrier, bound by all the extraordinary responsibilities and entitled to the privileges of that class of bailees, is sometimes a close question, and can be answered only by particular proof of how his business was conducted, and...