Case ID: ny_232/html/0566-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oscar L. Gubelman et al., Appellants, v. Panama Railroad Company et al., Respondents.
    
      Carriers — bill of lading — delivery by carriers to consignee of goods shipped without taking up bill of lading — when carriers not liable.
    
    
      Gubelman v. Panama R. R. Co., 192 App. Div. 165, affirmed.
    (Submitted December 2, 1921;
    decided December 16, 1921.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 19, 1920, in favor of defendants, .upon the submission of a controversy under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Ford Motor Company delivered to the United Fruit Company three automobiles consigned to the Ford Motor Agency, Canal Zone, and at the same time received from the United Fruit Company a bill of lading which stated the consignee to be the “ Ford Motor Agency, Ancon, C. Z., or assigns.” The shipment was delivered by the United Fruit Company, the originating carrier, to the. Panama Railroad Company, a connecting carrier, at Cristobal, C. Z., and by the latter company delivered to the consignee, the Ford Motor Agency, at Ancon, on the 31st day of August, 1917, without taking up the bill of lading. In the meantime, under an arrangement, of which neither of the carriers had notice, between the Ford Motor Company, the plaintiffs Knauth, Nachod & Kuhne and the Ford Motor Agency, the Ford Motor Company had delivered the bill of lading to the bankers and had received against the same the sum of $1,279.54, the expectation being that' the Ford Motor Agency would take up the bill of lading and pay off the bankers through the Continental Banking and Trust Company at Panama. While the bill of lading seems to have been delivered to the bankers under this arrangement, it was neither indorsed by the Ford Motor Company nor by the consignee, the Ford Motor Agency. The question submitted to the Appellate Division under the agreed case was whether under these circumstances either one, or both, of- the carriers could be held liable for conversion.
    
      George T. Hogg for appellants.
    
      Richard Reid Rogers for Panama Railroad Company, respondent.
    
      Cletus Keating and Vernon 8. Jones for United Fruit Company, respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Page, J., below.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cabdozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.