Werner Transp. Co. v. Shimon
| Decision Date | 22 June 1946 |
| Citation | 249 Wis. 87,23 N.W.2d 519 |
| Parties | WERNER TRANSP. CO. v. SHIMON. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Jefferson County; Jesse Earle, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action by Werner Transportation Company, an interstate motor vehicle common carrier, against Morris Shimon, consignee, to recover transportation charges. From a judgment for plaintiff entered December 11, 1945, the defendant appeals. The controlling facts are stated in the opinion.
Lueck & Lueck, of Watertown, for appellant.
Grady & Dakin, of Watertown, for respondent.
The case is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Jefferson county, designated a summary judgment, awarding to the plaintiff against the consignee, recovery of freight charges of an interstate motor vehicle common carrier for transportation from Montevideo, Minnesota, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, of three truck loads of eggs under a bill of lading alleged to bear the notation ‘collect.'
The complaint alleges the sale to the defendant and the transportation and delivery by plaintiff to defendant of the three loads of eggs and that each such delivery was made under a bill of lading ‘requiring the cost of transportation to be paid by the (defendant) consignee.’ The answer admits the sale, transportation and delivery of the eggs, that the amounts of the freight charges were correctly stated in the complaint, and alleges that they were to be paid by the consignor. It denies that they were shipped under a bill of lading requiring the consignee to pay the freight charges.
We consider that the denial of the answer does not raise an issue as to the liability of the defendant for the transportation charge. Although the consignee claims that by the contract of sale the consignor is to pay the charge for transportation, ‘the carrier may look to the consignee to whom the goods are actually delivered’ to pay them. Great Northern R. Co. v. Hocking Valley, etc., Co., 166 Wis. 465, 469, 166 N.W. 41. Although no contractual relation arises between carrier and consignee by the mere designation of the latter as consignee, the consignee is the presumptive owner of the goods transported and if he accepts the goods in the capacity of owner the law implies a promise on his part to pay the charges. New York Central Ry. Co. v. Warren Ross Lbr. Co., 234 N.Y. 261, 137 N.E. 324, 24 A.L.R. 1160, 1162, citing Pittsburgh C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Fink, 250 U.S. 577, 40 S.Ct. 27, 63 L.Ed. 1151. Numerous cases are cited to this point in notes in 24 A.L.R. 1167, 78 A.L.R. 929; 129 A.L.R. 215.
A motion for summary judgment was based upon the ‘summons and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marine Bank v. Taz's Trucking Inc., 2003AP2827.
...of delivery. See Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Krohn Cartage Co., 79 Wis. 2d 39, 255 N.W.2d 310 (1977); Werner Transp. Co. v. Shimon, 249 Wis. 87, 23 N.W.2d 519 (1946); Waters v. Pfister & Vogel Leather Co., 176 Wis. 16, 186 N.W. 173 ¶ 16. For guidance, we review many of the cases and the r......
-
Buckley v. Park Bldg. Corp.
...as a recognized motion in the courts of Wisconsin, as reflected in the following decisions of this court: Werner Transportation Co. v. Shimon (1946), 249 Wis. 87, 23 N.W.2d 519; Monroe County Finance Co. v. Thomas (1943), 243 Wis. 568, 11 N.W.2d 190; State ex rel. Tracy v. Henry (1935), 219......
-
Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Krohn Cartage Co., Inc.
...of the goods . . . that makes the consignee a party to the contract." (at 20, 186 N.W. at 175) Similarly, in Werner Transportation Co. v. Shimon, 249 Wis. 87, 23 N.W.2d 519 (1946), this court in 1946 stated that the mere designation of consignee imposes no liability, but "if he accepts good......
-
Empire Petroleum Co. v. Sinclair Pipeline Co.
...contract to the contrary. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Fink, 250 U.S. 577, 581, 40 S.Ct. 27, 63 L.Ed. 1151; Werner Transp. Co. v. Shimon, 249 Wis. 87, 23 N.W.2d 519; Western & Atlantic R. Co. et al. v. Underwood, D.C.Ga., 281 F. 891. Nor will any act or omission of the carrier estop......