Union Sav. Ass'n v. St. Louis Grain Elevator Co.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1884 |
| Citation | 81 Mo. 341 |
| Parties | THE UNION SAVINGS ASSOCIATION v. THE ST. LOUIS GRAIN ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
REVERSED.
Broadhead & Haeussler for appellant.
The paper offered in evidence, and which is the basis of plaintiff's claim of title to the property in question, is not a warehouse receipt within the meaning of our statute on the subject. R. S., §§ 558, 559; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 499; Farmer v. Gregory, 78 Ky. 475; Byles on Bills, p. 95; Nat. B'k v. Gay, 63 Mo. 33. The paper on its face conveyed to plaintiff clear notice of its ad interim function. Van Schoonhaven v. Curly, 86 N. Y. 187. Plaintiff held the paper subject to all existing and prior equities. Kellogg v. Schnaake, 56 Mo. 136; Davis v. Carson, 69 Mo. 610; Logan v. Smith, 62 Mo. 458; Brainerd v. Reaves, 2 Mo. App. 493. The plaintiff cannot recover in this action from defendant the value of the property mentioned in the paper sued on, as it unquestionably appears from the evidence that the plaintiff theretofore received the full value and proceeds of the identical property under the bill of lading issued for said property to Stein & Co., and delivered to plaintiff in pursuance of the obligation of defendant expressed in the paper sued upon. Bank v. Boyce, 78 Ky. 42; Nelson v. Brown, 53 Ia. 555; Harris v. Bradley, 2 Dill. 284; Bank v. Waldridge, 19 Ohio St. 419; State v. Fitzpatrick 64 Mo. 185; Williams v. Evans, 39 Mo. 205.
Charles A. Pearce for respondent.
The theory of the plaintiff in this cause is: 1. That the receipt offered in evidence is negotiable by written indorsement and delivery, in the same manner as bills of exchange and promissory notes, and on delivery so indorsed the transferee is vested with the title of the property. Secs. 558, 559, R. S. 1879, p. 88; Central Savings Bank v. Garrison, 2 Mo. App. 58; Harris v. Bradley, 2 Dill. 284; Price v. Ins. Co., 43 Wis. 281 et seq. And the negotiation of the receipt by Stein & Co. cut off the defenses which defendant might have had against the bailors, and made the plaintiff subject only to the facts stated in the receipt. Greenbaum v. Megibbon, 10 Bush (Ky.) 419; First National Bank v. Boyce, 10 Law Jour. 238. 2. That the defendant was prohibited by statute from issuing any receipt or other voucher to any person purporting to be the owner, etc., thereof, for any goods, merchandise or grain, unless the same shall have been actually received into store or upon defendant's premises, and be in the store or upon its premises and under its control at the time of issuing such receipt, and that, therefore, defendant is estopped from showing, or attempting to show, that said grain was not actually received. St. Mo., p. 87, § 553; McNeil v. Hill, Wool. C. C. R. 96; Griswold v. Haven, 25 N. Y. 596; Goodwin v. Scannell, 6 Cal. 541. 3. That the defendant was prohibited by statute from issuing any second receipt for said grain while a former receipt was outstanding and uncanceled without writing across the face of the same “duplicate,” and the issuing of a second receipt is no defense to this action, but contrary-wise, is a violation of the law, rendering defendant liable. St. Mo., p. 87, § 555. 4. That no matter whether said grain was received from Stein & Co. for storing, shipping, grinding, manufacturing or other purpose, the defendant was prohibited by statute from shipping, transferring or in any manner removing said grain, and from permitting it to be shipped, transferred or removed beyond its, defendant's, control, (the receipt for the same herein sued on having been given,) without the written assent of the plaintiff holding said receipt; and prima facie, the receipt issued and herein concerned, was one for storage. St. Mo., p. 87, § 356; Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. 384; Cochran v. Rippey, 6 Law Jour. 88. 5. That no printed or written conditions, clauses or provisions inserted in or attached to said receipt, herein concerned, in any way limits the negotiability, or affects the negotiation thereof or in any manner impairs the rights and duties of the parties thereto, or persons interested therein, and every such condition, clause or provision purporting to limit or affect the rights, duties or liabilities created or declared “in this act,” are void and of no effect. St. Mo., p. 88, § 558. 6. That this receipt being issued to Stein & Co., and by them indorsed and delivered for value to plaintiff, the plaintiff became, by operation of law, the owner of said grain, and defendant was prohibited from delivering it to any person whomsoever, except on the surrender and cancellation of said receipt. St. Mo., p. 88, § 559 7. That the defendant having violated these provisions of the statute, is thereby rendered liable to plaintiff in all damages, immediate and consequential, which plaintiff has suffered by reason of such violation, and the court erred in excluding testimony on the subject of consequential damages. St. Mo., p. 89, § 560.
Prior to the 31st of January, 1880, Stein & Co. had stored with defendant 5,921 45-56 bushels of No. 2 white-mixed corn, and on that day they delivered to defendant its warehouse receipts for the same and received instead the following paper:
“ST. LOUIS, January 31st, 1880.
Received of G. A. Stein & Co. five thousand nine hundred and twenty-one 45-56 bushels of No. 2 whitemixed corn, to be loaded into sacks, tickets for which when loaded, will be sent down promptly.
D. P. SLATTERY,
Superintendent and Secretary.
Per OWEN.
5,921 45-56 bushels.”
On this as collateral security, Stein & Co. procured a loan of $3,400 from plaintiff, which, on the 30th of June, and again on the 1st of July, 1880, made ineffectual demands of the corn of defendant, and thereupon commenced this action. If the paper sued on is a warehouse receipt, within the meaning of sections 558 and 559 of the Revised Statutes, the judgment of the court of appeals must be affirmed, otherwise reversed. Those sections read as follows:
All receipts issued or given by any warehouseman, or other person or firm, and all bills of lading, transportation receipts, and contracts of affreightment, issued or given by any person, boat, railroad or transportation or transfer company, for goods, wares, merchandise, grain, flour, or other produce, shall be and are, hereby made negotiable by written indorsement thereon, and delivery in the same manner as bills of exchange and promissory notes; and no printed or written conditions, clauses or provisions inserted in or attached to any such receipts, bills of lading, or contracts, shall in any way limit the negotiability or affect any negotiation thereof, nor in any manner impair the right and duties of the parties thereto, or persons interested therein; and every such condition, clause or provision purporting to limit or affect the rights, duties, or liabilities created or declared in this act, shall be void, and of no force or effect. 1. R. S. § 558.
Warehouse receipts given by any warehouseman, wharfinger, or other person or firm, for any goods, wares, merchandise, grain, flour, or other produce or commodity, stored or deposited, and all bills of lading and transportation receipts of every kind, given by any carrier, boat, vessel, railroad, transportation or transfer company, may be transferred by indorsement in writing thereon, and the delivery thereof so indorsed; and any and all persons to whom the same may be so transferred, shall be deemed and held to be the owner of such goods, wares, merchandise, grain, flour or other produce or commodity, so far as to give validity to any pledge, lien or transfer, given, made or created thereby, as on the faith thereof, and no property so stored or deposited, as specified in such bills of lading or receipts, shall be delivered, except on surrender and cancelation of such receipts and bills of lading, provided, however, that all such receipts and bills of lading, which shall have the words “not negotiable” plainly written or stamped on the face thereof, shall be exempt from the provisions of this act. 1 R. S., § 559.
It appears from the evidence, that the paper in question was not in the form of receipts given by defendant for produce stored with it. Such receipts were in the following form:
“No. 2,276; 5,000 bushels. St. Louis Grain Elevator Company, St. Louis, Mo., January 26th, 1880. Received in store from bulk 5,000 bushels of corn, inspected No. 2 white-mixed, subject only to the order hereon of Nanson, Bartholow & Co., and the surrender of the receipts and payment of charges.
J. JACKSON, President.
D. P. SLATTERY, Secretary.
Indorsed: NANSON, BARTHOLOW & Co.”
The difference between this receipt and that in suit, is material and significant. The effect of section 558, supra, is to make warehouse receipts negotiable. To understand what are such receipts as are made negotiable, sections 558 and 559 are to be read together. Section 559 provides how receipts made negotiable by section 558 may be transferred, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial