76 Minn. 420 | Minn. | 1899
Action to recover damages on the ground of alleged negligence on defendant’s part in handling, as a commission merchant, a car load of fall apples shipped to him by plaintiffs. The latter were-in business at Irving, Illinois, while defendant’s place was at St. Paul, in this state.
The facts were that the apples (a car load consisting of 160 barrels) were shipped by rail from Irving August 28,1897, and reached. St. Paul August 31. The shipment was not entirely unexpected
The complaint charged that the apples should have been sold within a reasonable time after their arrival, not to exceed six days, and the plaintiffs must be bound by this allegation. The defendant stated on the trial that apples of the varieties in question would keep, under the conditions which prevailed,
“Anywhere from six days to probably two weeks; that is, they would keep, but show deterioration in value; they would commence to get specked, and would have to be repacked.”
At the close of the case counsel for defendant moved that the court instruct the jury to return a verdict for defendant on the evidence, and duly excepted to a .denial of the motion. The verdict was for plaintiffs, and upon the minutes of the court and the files and record defendant’s counsel moved for an order for judgment in favor of his client notwithstanding the verdict. The motion was granted, and the appeal is from the judgment; a case having been settled and allowed in the court below.
The principal question submitted to the jury in this case was whether defendant exercised reasonable diligence in handling and disposing of plaintiffs’ goods which had been consigned to him for that purpose. As a factor he was bound to possess a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and to exercise that skill and knowledge with reasonable care and prudence. A factor undertakes for that degree which an ordinarily discreet, prudent, and diligent man would exercise in his own business under the circumstances. If he exercises less than that degree of skill and knowledge, and loss ensues, he is liable therefor. If, for example, he delays a sale of goods consigned to him for an unreasonable length of time, and the goods depreciate in value, so that his principal loses, he is liable for such loss. Mechera, Ag. §§ 1006, 1018. The evidence produced on the trial is to be tested by these rules, and usually the question involved is one of fact, to be determined by the jury.
When ordering judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict, the court below seems to have been convinced that from the evidence it conclusively appeared that defendant had not been negligent in respect to the skill and diligence he should have exercised when undertaking the sale of plaintiff’s apples. We cannot agree with the court below, for, in our judgment, the proof amply sustained the verdict. There was evidence which warranted the jury in believing that defendant knew of the arrival of the fruit August 31. He knew that the varieties sent to him were not good keepers, and that they were easily affected by the hot w'eather which was then prevailing. While there is some very general testimony of his own as to seeking purchasers for apples and other goods he had on commission and still in the cars, it does not appear
The judgment is reversed, and on remittitur the court below will cause judgment to be entered in accordance with the verdict.