White v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 14 March 1899 |
| Citation | 124 N.C. 177,32 S.E. 495 |
| Parties | WHITE et al. v. BOYD et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Factors—Keepers op Tobacco — Salesrooms — Liability to Third Persons—Conversion—Warehousemen.
1. Keepers of a tobacco salesroom received a consignment of tobacco for sale, and sold it at public auction, subject to the consignor's right to reject the bid. and then delivered it to the buyer, collecting the price, and paying it to the consignor. Their compensation was a commission on the sale. Held, that the salesroom keepers were agents of the consignor.
2. In handling the tobacco, the salesroom keepers were not warehousemen.
3. The tobacco having been subject to a crop lien and a mortgage, the salesroom keepers were liable to the mortgagee and landlord for conversion.
Appeal from superior court, Halifax county; Norwood, Judge.
Action by Mary A. White and another against Boyd & Young; There was a judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
E. L. Travis, for appellants.
MacRae & Day, for appellees.
MONTGOMERY, J. For the convenience of both the buyers and the owners of the tobacco in the leaf, salesrooms, commonly called "warehouses, " are to be found at convenient places in the tobacco-growing districts, to which the article is carried to be sold. This action was brought to recover the proceeds of the sale by the defendants of certain leaf tobacco, alleged to have been the property of the plaintiffs, and to have been sold by the defendants without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs waived the tort growing out of the alleged conversion of the tobacco by the defendants, ratified the sale, and brought this action for money had and received, which remedy they had the right to adopt. Sugg v. Farrar, 107 N. C. 123, 12 S. E. 236: Brittain v. Payne, 118 N. C. 989, 24 S. E. 711.
It appeared from the evidence that the defendants sold certain leaf tobacco which was delivered to them by one Crowder, who was both the cropper of the plaintiff White and a mortgagor of the plaintiff Green; that the compensation which the defendants received in the transaction was in the nature of com-missions on the sales; that the tobacco was sold without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs; and that defendants had actual notice of the mortgage. The plaintiff White, landlord, had also executed a mortgage on the tobacco to the other plaintiff. Upon the conclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence, on motion of defendants' counsel, his honor dismissed the action, under chapter 109, Laws 1897.
We may say in the beginning of the discussion that the facts in this case do not constitute the defendants warehousemen, whatever they may call the place where the tobacco was sold. They sold upon commission, and did not undertake to store the tobacco for hire. 28 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 636. Whether or not his honor was correct in dismissing the action depends upon the nature of the business of the defendants; that is, whether they were agents, under any of the various forms of agency, of Crowd-er, the person who delivered to them the tobacco to be sold. If they were the agents of Crowder, then, in our opinion, they are liable to plaintiffs for their action in the sale of the tobacco.
The defendants' contention is that they were not the agents of either Crowder or the purchaser of the tobacco; that they simply brought together the buyer and Crowder, the apparent owner of the tobacco, for the convenience of them both; and that it was in the power of Crowder to refuse the bid made to the auctioneer of the defendants "by turning the tag, "—that is, by removing or displacing the scrap of paper attached to a small pointed splinter of wood, and stuck into the pile of tobacco by an employs of the defendants, who followed along upon the heels of the auctioneer, and on which paper was written the name of the purchaser, and the price bid. And the defendants further contend that they did not undertake to hold the tobacco against the lawful claims of any one, and that they had no interest in, nor did they claim any in, the tobacco; and that, as a compensation for their services in offering the tobacco for sale and finding a purchaser, they received only a commission on such sales. In support of their contentions, the counsel of the defendants referred us to the case of Abernathy v. Wheeler, 92 Ky. 320, 17 S. W. 858. In that case the tobacco of the mortgagee was shipped to the managers (called "warehousemen") of the salesrooms by a person other than the mortgagee without the latter's knowledge or consent, was sold, and the proceeds paid to the shipper. The fact appeared there that the salesmen of the tobacco had no actual notice of the mortgage. In the opinion in that case it was recited as a reason for the decision that the defendants were not liable to the mortgagee for a conversion of the property; that they had no knowledge or information that any other person than the shipper had any in terest in the tobacco. The decision therefore can be of no service to us, even if it was correct in the conclusion that a lack of actual notice of the mortgage on the part of the defendants protected them against the suit of the plaintiffs, for, as we have said, the defendants here had actual notice of the mortgage of the plaintiff Green. But we do not concur In the reasoning of the case of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Odom
...to the crop are charged with notice thereof. Belcher v. Grimsley, 88 N.C. 88; Sugg v. Farrar, 107 N.C. 123, 12 S.E. 236; White v. Boyd, 124 N.C. 177, 32 S.E. 495; Burwell v. Coopers Co-op. Warehouse Co., 172 N.C. 79, 89 S.E. 1064; Rhodes v. SmithDouglass Fertilizer Co., 220 N.C. 21, 16 S.E.......
-
United States v. Brown, 7965.
...but Brown would have been required to accept the highest commercial bid and to pay a penalty of 16¢ a pound, or $114.24. 5 White v. Boyd, 124 N.C. 177, 32 S.E. 495; Hall v. Odom, 240 N.C. 66, 81 S.E. 2d 129; Turnage Co. v. Morton, 240 N.C. 94, 81 S.E.2d 6 15 U.S.C.A. 714c, 714b(h). 7 15 U.S......
-
Sanders v. Ragan
...or deceit, the owner is allowed to waive the tort and sue in contract (Stroud v. Insurance Co., 148 N. C. 54, 61 S. E. 626; White v. Boyd, 124 N. C. 177, 32 S. E. 495); and we see no reason for withholding the application of the principle from the present case, where it is established that ......
-
Turnage Co. v. Morton
...Under the stipulations and findings of fact stated above, nothing else appearing, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment. White v. Boyd, 124 N.C. 177, 32 S.E. 495. In White v. Boyd, supra, Crowder, a cropper on the land of plaintiff White, took the tobacco to the sales warehouse of the defe......