Wells v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 31 March 1858
• Citation: 27 Mo. 17
• Parties: WELLS et al., Defendants in Error, v. THOMAS, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

27 Mo. 17

WELLS et al., Defendants in Error,

v.THOMAS, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1858.

1. Where one of several companies engaged in transporting goods on the line of a route between two distant points receives goods from another of those companies, and, in accordance with the usual custom in such cases and in ignorance of any special contract made with the company first receiving the goods, pays the freight and charges demanded at the point where they are so received and transports them to their place of destination: Held, there being no arrangement or understanding between the companies with reference to ““through” transportation, that the company might retain possession of the goods until the consignee should pay its own customary charges for transportation, together with the freight and charges paid by it on its receipt of the goods, although such sum should exceed the amount for which the company that first received the goods agreed they should be transported.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

This was an action for the possession of an omnibus. The cause was tried by the court without a jury upon an agreed statement of the facts, of which the following is the substance: Plaintiffs purchased the omnibus mentioned in the petition, of the value of five hundred dollars, of John Stephenson, in New York, and instructed him to ship it to them at St. Louis, Missouri. Thereupon said Stephenson, for the plaintiffs, on the 24th of September, 1855, made a contract with the New York Central Railroad Company (being a railroad running from New York to Buffalo, in the State of New York) to deliver said omnibus to the plaintiffs at St. Louis for the sum of $49.33. The bill of lading (which was set forth in the agreed statement) was forwarded to plaintiffs at St. Louis. Stephenson delivered the omnibus to the New York Central Railroad Company to be transported to St. Louis, by which it was carried in the usual mode and time to Buffalo, and there delivered to the Michigan Central Railroad Company, which transported the same to Joliet. At Joliet the omnibus was delivered to the Chicago, Alton and St. Louis Railroad Company to be transported to St. Louis. The Chicago, Alton and St. Louis Railroad Company received said omnibus in due course of business, without any notice of any special contract for its transportation, and paid to the Michigan Central Railroad Company the sum of seventy-two dollars, the amount of their bill for the freight on the omnibus from Buffalo to Joliet, and the charges they had paid on receiving the same. It is customary for one railroad company, when receiving goods from another railroad company to be carried forward by the former, to pay the freight and charges upon said goods and property up to the point where they are so received. Said omnibus arrived in St. Louis, and was in the possession of defendant, the agent of the Chicago, Alton and St. Louis Railroad Company. The defendant notified plaintiffs of the arrival of the omnibus and requested them to call and pay freight and charges, amounting to $102.40. The plaintiffs offered to pay $49.33, and demanded of defendant the omnibus. The defendant refused to deliver it until the freight and charges advanced to the Michigan Central Railroad Company and the freight from Joliet to St. Louis, the latter amounting at the customary rates to $30.37, should be paid. The plaintiffs refused to pay more than the amount tendered. There was nothing in the amount or character of the charges paid by the Chicago, Alton and St. Louis Railroad Company to the Michigan Central Railroad Company to excite any suspicion that the charges were unreasonable.

The court decided the cause for the plaintiffs. A motion for a review was made and overruled.

N. D. & G. P. Strong, for plaintiff in error.

I. The special contract was improperly permitted to bind the defendant, as it was made without any authority from him or the railroad under which he claims, and said railroad received the goods and transported them without notice of any such contract.

II. By the delivery of the omnibus to the New York Central road, the plaintiffs made that road their agents, with authority to deliver to other connecting roads at the end of its route, and so on at the termination of each route; and a delivery by each carrier in the ordinary course of business, without notice of any special contract, authorized the last carrier to whom it was delivered to pay reasonable charges and to recover them at the end of the route, together with a reasonable sum for its own service. (Story on Agency, secs. 73, 126, 127; Edwards on Bailments, secs. 449, 504, 507, 518; St. John v. Van Santvoord, 6 Hill. 157; 18 Verm. 141; Mechs. Bank v. Champlain Trans. Co. 23 Verm. 186, 209; Ackley v. Kellogg, 8 Cow. 223.)

III. A carrier has a lien for reasonable freight and charges, and may retain the goods until they are paid, even though the party to whom the charges were advanced could not have recovered them. (Edwards on Bailments, 548; Chitty on Carriers, 106; Angell on Carriers, secs. 356, 368,...