Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Co. v. Solomon

• Decision Date: 20 March 1916
• Docket Number: 260
• Citation: 184 S.W. 418,123 Ark. 66
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD CO. v. SOLOMON
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

184 S.W. 418

123 Ark. 66

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD CO. v. SOLOMON

No. 260

Supreme Court of Arkansas

March 20, 1916

Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge; affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Fink & Dinning, for appellant.

1. Plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain this suit. The title was in the consignee. 115 Ark. 221. The case of Gibson v Inman Packet Co., 111 Ark. 521 does not apply in this case.

2. Plaintiffs show no title to the property before shipment.

Andrews & Burke, for appellees.

1. The undisputed evidence shows that the title remained in the plaintiffs until the seed were delivered in good condition. The case in 115 Ark. 221 does not apply to this case. The correct rule is laid down in 11 Ark. 521 and governs here. 56 N. J. Law. 617; 32 Md. 344.

2. The testimony does show that Solomon-Moore Land Co. sold and delivered the seed to the consignee. The question of the title to the seed before shipment was not raised below; it is too late to raise it here for the first time.

OPINION

WOOD J.

The Solomon-Moore Land Company on February 19, 1913, shipped from Helena, Arkansas, to Memphis, Tennessee, over the line of appellant, a car load of cotton seed. The bill of lading showed that the car was consigned to the Chickasaw Oil Company. The appellees sued appellant alleging that the car was rendered worthless to appellees through the negligence of appellant in delaying the transportation. Appellees recovered judgment, and appellant concedes that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the judgment as to negligence on the part of the appellant, but insists that the judgment is erroneous for two reasons, viz:

1. Because the car was received by appellant f.o.b. Helena Arkansas, consigned to Chickasaw Oil Mills, Memphis, Tenn which appellant contends vested the title in the consignee. Appellant relies upon the case of Warren & Ouachita Valley Ry. Co. v. Southern Lbr. Co., 115 Ark. 221, 170 S.W. 998, where the undisputed evidence showed that the sale was unconditional. We said: "The delivery to the carrier under those circumstances constituted a delivery to the purchaser and completed the sale, the title to the goods then being in the consignee." Again, "There was no effort to prove in this case an intention not to pass the title by the delivery to the carrier * * *. The contract of sale being complete, the only remedy the vendor has is against his vendee to recover the price, and the latter has a remedy against the carrier for any damage which accrued by reason of the failure to deliver." But in the case at bar there was testimony which at least would warrant a finding that the sale of the car of seed was upon condition that the vendee and consignee had the privilege to refuse the seed if they were not in good condition when they reached Memphis. If such were the fact, the sale was not unconditional and complete when the consignor delivered the goods to appellant for the consignee. The instant case is ruled by Gibson v. Inman Packet Co., 111 Ark. 521, 164 S.W. 280, where we held that the...