87 Minn. 370 | Minn. | 1902
. This action was brought to recover the value of a car load of wheat, and the essential facts are undisputed. In September, 1900, plaintiff was the owner of the wheat in question, and shipped it by rail from Running Water station, in South Dakota, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, receiving from the carrier a bill of lading; the consignees being plaintiff’s agents at Milwaukee. When the car
Counsel for defendants relies mainly upon Leuthold v. Fairchild, 35. Minn. 99, 27 N. W. 503, 28 N. W. 218, and McLennan v. Minneapolis & N. Ele. Co., 57 Minn. 317, 59 N. W. 628, and practically concedes in his brief that, if the opinions in these cases sustain his contention, they are against the weight of authority in this country, as well as in England. There can be no doubt of this. But the present case is wholly unlike those referred to. The plaintiff’s wheat, through no act of his own, but through the rascality of Wasser, and possibly the negligence of the common carrier, passed into the possession of these defendants. They were not mere agents for, or servants of, Wasser, disposing of paper evidences of title to the property while it was actually or constructively in the possession of the latter. Through the forgeries the grain itself
Onli(the facts, the case is controlled by Dolliff v. Robbins, 83 Minn. 498, 86 N. W. 772. Although the question of the extent of the liability of a commission merchant, who merely acted as an agent in the matter of receiving and disposing of goods shipped to him, was not there passed upon, it was expressly held, upon a state of facts not distinguishable from those now before us, that Leut-hold v. Fairchild was not in point.
In the case last referred to, the defendant bank was merely a medium through which payment for certain grain was obtained for the consignor. There was not, nor was there in McLennan v. Minneapolis & N. Ele. Co., supra, that delivery of possession of the property, that independent exercise of dominion over it, and that personal interest in the proceeds of the sale, which are found here.
These defendants were not acting simply as servants in collecting money for another. They were connected with the property in a wholly distinctive character, and in their own behalf, with all the powers, duties, and rights of factors, including qualified ownership. They disposed of property which had been taken from the true owner by the criminal acts of Wasser, they received the proceeds of their sale, and cannot justify their acts by claiming
This court, in disposing of this case, must be governed by the well-settled principles of law, and cannot grant immunity to defendants because of the hardship which arises from a liability; nor can it be influenced by the fact that a negligent common carrier might have been subjected to an action for the value of the wheat, or, as claimed by counsel, that the action to recover such value ought, in justice, to have been brought against the. carrier instead of defendants.
Judgment affirmed.