Weaver Cotton Co. v. Batesville Compress Co.
| Decision Date | 30 March 1925 |
| Docket Number | (No. 268.) |
| Citation | 270 S.W. 509 |
| Parties | WEAVER COTTON CO. v. BATESVILLE COMPRESS CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Independence County; Dene H. Coleman, Judge.
Action by the Weaver Cotton Company against the Batesville Compress Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Cole & Poindexter, of Batesville, for appellant.
Samuel M. Casey, of Batesville, for appellee.
On the 1st day of October, 1923, the appellant instituted an action against the appellee for the conversion of two bales of cotton. The appellant alleged that on the 20th of November, 1922, the appellee received from one J. W. Black two bales of lint cotton, and became the bailee and warehouseman for said cotton, and issued to said Black two receipts for same, which receipts were negotiable; that the appellant became the holder of these receipts in due course for a valuable consideration; that in April, 1923, it made demand of the appellee for the cotton, and appellee failed and refused to deliver the same to the appellant; that the appellee thus wrongfully converted the appellant's cotton of the value of $285.73. The appellee denied liability to the appellant, and set up in defense that the appellant presented two receipts for the cotton which had been altered since appellee issued them; that the receipts were originally issued by the appellee to one J. W. Blair; that, when presented to the appellee, the name had been changed to J. W. Black, and the indorsement on the back of the receipts was J. W. Black; that because of this forgery the appellee did not honor the receipts, and for the additional reason that they had already turned over to J. W. Blair, the owner of the cotton, the two bales of cotton described in the tickets, said Blair having reported to the appellee that he had lost his tickets.
The facts are substantially as follows: The appellant was in the business of buying and selling cotton, and the appellee was engaged in the business of warehouseman and bailee for hire, and handling, compressing, and storing cotton in the bale. The appellant carried on its business in the following manner: If a man had a bale of cotton for sale, he generally had a receipt from the compress and a sample. The appellant bought the cotton by an examination of the sample, and having the receipt transferred to it by an indorsement of the name of the holder of the ticket or receipt on the back thereof. The appellant purchased altogether on the compress numbers. It paid no attention to the names in the receipt. It bought often from people whom it did not know. They had the samples, and appellant took the samples and number that corresponded with the number on the ticket, and it did not have to have the names of the parties holding the tickets identified. Appellant bought two bales of cotton which were represented by tickets, which tickets were introduced in evidence. The material part of the ticket was as follows:
"Received of J. W. Black of Red Stripe, owner, one bale of cotton numbered and described as follows: Private mark — number — weight in 500 Reweight, to be stored and held, subject at all times to reasonable inspection by the owner, and delivered upon surrender of this receipt properly indorsed, and the payment of accrued charges."
On the back of the receipt was the following:
There was also indorsed on the back of the receipts in rubber stamp, "Williamson, Inman & Stribling." The two receipts, except as to the number and weight of the cotton, were precisely the same. There was a tag number on the inside of each sample which came off of the compress tag and corresponded with the number on the ticket. The appellee bought the cotton represented by the tickets on the 1st of March, 1923, and sold the cotton three or four days after that to Williamson, Inman & Stribling. The cotton was not delivered to the purchaser, and appellant refunded the money and took the tickets back. Appellant then made demand on appellee for the cotton. Appellee refused to deliver the cotton or to reimburse appellant, and appellant then brought this suit.
The cotton was worth $285. Appellant did not know the name of the man it bought the cotton from. The tickets were written with lead pencil. The man that represented Black claimed that his name was O. J. Baker. Appellant asked Baker to whom it should make the check in payment for the cotton, and made the check out to J. W. Black or O. J. Baker. Appellant stood on everything that comes on the cotton ticket and the number of course. A holder may have altered the tickets, but appellant did not know anything about it. The tickets show that they were issued on the 20th of November, and appellant purchased them in March. It was not unusual for a man to hold the tickets that long. Appellant had purchased tickets that had been held a year. There was nothing unusual in buying that way. The number on one of the tickets was 50522, on the other 50523. The tickets did not appear to have been altered or changed.
Three witnesses who were cotton buyers in Batesville testified to the effect that they were familiar with the way that the appellees handled cotton stored with it for compress, and that the receipts issued by the appellee were for the cotton stored with it. The receipts in controversy were submitted to these witnesses, and they testified that in their opinion they were genuine receipts.
A witness for the appellee testified that he was the weigher for the appellee in November, 1922. The tickets introduced in evidence were exhibited to the witness, and he was asked if he had issued any such receipt as that, and answered that he did not think that he issued these receipts. Witness actually weighed and received the cotton, but did not issue any receipt to J. W. Black. Witness had duplicates of the receipts he issued that day which he kept in a book for that purpose. He issued two tickets on the same number as that on the tickets in controversy and on the same date to J. W. Blair at Red Stripe. He examined the tickets, and stated that the name "J. W. Black" had been written there, or the name changed since witness issued it. The initials are the same, but it seemed to witness that the name had been changed. Witness issued the tickets to the man who brought the cotton there for Mr. Blair. Witness did not remember his name. A man by the name of Blair came in a few days after the cotton was delivered to the appellee, and after witness had written the receipts and claimed that he did not have the receipts, and witness told him that he could make bond for the receipts and get his cotton in that way. Witness was informed that Blair made bond. It was the custom of the appellee that, when a man stored cotton in its warehouse, he would have to bring the receipts in order to get the cotton, and, if he could not produce the receipts, he was required by the warehouse company to indemnify it by giving a bond for any loss to the company sustained by delivery of the cotton to him. Witness located the receipts that he issued by the numbers on the tickets. It was the custom of the appellee to locate the cotton and let it out and deliver it by the number on the receipts. These tickets were written in lead pencil, and delivered to whoever brought the cotton. Witness had no way of knowing the party to whom the receipts were issued, so, in order to keep witness in the clear, he went by the numbers. He had a series of numbers running on the book. One of the witnesses stated that the receipts looked as though the last part of the name had been changed.
The court gave the following instruction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial