The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1884-12-17
SUPREME COURT CASES.
Reported for The Clarion, hv H. H. Parker
Attorney stLsp, jasksea, Miss
OCTOBER TERM 1885.
J. B. 4foErIMogE

J. B. MoErIMonHl
l. A. RAGsDALE.
From the Circuit Court OF .Lauderdale
County. ;. Il. Terral, Judge.
Bailmeht. Cation carehouss receipts.
Liability 81 sgareao,semaa.
Mortimore sued Ragsdale, the propri
etor OF 4 cotton warehouse at Meridian,
for a number of bales of cotton, for
which he held Ragsdale's receipts. The
defence was based upon various tIansac-
tions, too complicated and diverse in
their character to be briefly stated, be-
tween the plaintiff, the defendant, and
other parties. The opinion of the court
embraces everything necessary to a
proper understanding of the legal points
decided.
COOPER, J.
The plaintiff, when he had introduced
the warehouse receipts aud proved a
demand upon the defendant or his agent
for the property therein described, at
any time before the institution of this
suit, had prima .faeie right to recover
the value OF the property; and the bur
den of proof devolyed upon the defen-
1 dant to rebut the case made by the
| plaintiff, Ii was not necessary for the
| plaintiff to identity the cotton in anv
| other manner than by the receipts, nor
| to show which of the bales had been
| recovered by him from other parties
| into whose possession they had gone
| from the warehOuSeman. On the other
| hand, it was for the defendant to show
a delivery to the plaintiff or to some one
who at the time had lawful authority tc
receive the property.
The fact that the terms of the receipt
| bound the warehoUseman to deliver tbs
property only upon return of ther
receipts, properly endorsed, did not pre-
vent the legal title TO the property from
passing from the bailor to his yende,
| by consummated sale without an en-
dorsement of the receipts. The lega
title to the cotton was one thing; tn,
right to require a delivery CT it by thi
; | garehouseman was another The on
might be acquired by legal purchase
and what was legal purchase would b
determinable by the rules of law Tn
other could be gained only by confoi
nifty to the terms of the contract o
bailment, as evidenced by the receipt,
If Mortimore sold the cotton named j
; his receipts TO Wilder s. Co., absolutel
and Internationally, but did not deliy
er to them the receipts, properly e1dor,
ed, and in this condition of things tn
. defendant delivered the cotton to Vile
e err & Co., such delivery was legal, no
outstanding the fact that the receipt
were not taken up by him, and were nc
, endorsed to Wilder & Co, for it was
: delivery to the true owner. But ia
2 burden of establishing the right of vi
a der & Co., so to receive the cotton Wa
upon the defendant So on the othe
> hand, if Wilder & Co., sold to the plair
!, tiff the cotton deposited by themselyt
= or by Carter & Co., but failed to Ell
). dorse the receipts, the legal title passe
TO the plaintiff, and a delivery by til
T. defendant to other persons after motto
Of plaintiffs claim would not reliey
him from liability to the plaintiff,
If the cotton was seized under leg;
process against any other person tina
the defendant or the owner, and III
a defendant gave notice of such seizur
e and Of all ths material facts known /
him, or which might have been know
by the exercise OF reasonable care an
enquiry, TO tile person then owning,
p who had notified the defendant of h
: claim to the cotton. the defendant
relieved from liability; and in the a
u sence of notice of a claim by other pa
d ties, he would be justified in acting
, if the person to whom the receipts ha
o been given continued owner. But |
Il reason Of his relation to the property,
u was his duty to preserve it to the owne
-, and, when it was sSieel by legal prOce
which he could not resist, to ,easonab
a inform the owner of the seizure, in ord
re that he might assert his claim theret
\ Failing in this his responsibility cont
u ues, and he is liable for ali losses whit
N resulted. SGhoaf,r a. B0i{Heafs fl
note g, r. b. c., q. lois 81 Ind. Is
81 BLifea p. r. f. a., 80 \. !. 1913
If the cotton was seiaed and taxi
, under legal process against the ownt
q this was legal discharge of the ba
y ment.
P, These views sufficiently indicate Il
u principles which control this cau=
y They were not applied in the trial whiC
le has been had. .-lsef and remaaded.
u L. Brame, for appellant.
u Woods & Mcintosh, for appellee.