The San Antonio light. (San Antonio, Tex.) 1883-1886, 1885-05-21
BILLS OF LADING.
AN IMPORTANT SUIT INSTITUTED
IN THE FEDERAL COURT.
Castanola & Sons. vs.. Missouri Pa
oific n. n. Co. for non.Dellvery
fBills OF Lading.

tanOla q Sons, VI. the Missouri Pacihc
Railroad company, and the suit insti-
tuted Is Of so unique character that
the decision rendered by the honorable
Judge has been published in extenso
"ln this case the plaintiffs sue defendant
for the non-deivery Of - boxes Of to-
bacco. Tie facts developed by the evil
dcnce ARE substantially "A follows:
About the last of January 1881. Il
think the 18TH, member OF the firm OF
Turnkey Bros. & Co.. grocers, residing
and dong business mt Galveston
Texas, came to this place
(San Antonio, Texas and contracted
with this plaintiff for % boxes of Drum
mond's horseshoe tobacco. That about
the 9Th Of February thereafter TURNKEY
Brothers a Co. gave to the agent Of the
Drummond Tobacco company an order
for tobacco, % boxes, to be consigned to
Turnkey Brothers a Co. at san Antonio;
also number Of boxes to be shipped TO
them ut Galveston. On the lth of Feb
ruary the Drummond company shipped
the tobacco Ms ordered by TURNKEY
Brothers 4 Co. and taking from the rail-
road company (defendants) two bills Of
luding, one stamped "Original' and the
other "duplicate." The duplicate bill,
| together with the invoice, was transmit
ted to TURNKEY Brothers & Co., and the
original bill Of lading was attached to II
90 days draft drawn by the Consignors
upon the cOnsignees, and was sent
through bank to TURNKEY Brothers a
Co. for acceptance. Turnkey Brothers Il
Co., upon the receipt of the duplicate bill
of lading, delivered the same to plaintiff
Endorsed, without date, as follows:
Deliver to Mr.. Castanola Il Son.
Signed TURNKEY Brothers q Co" which
duplicate bill OF lading, together
with an invoice of the tobacco,
amounting to S270.jO. payable In 80
DAYS or per cent. oil for cash, which
bin of lading and invoice reached Cas-
tunola 4 sons February 20. 1854. On
the next day the plaintiffs RENTED to
Turnkey Bros. Il Co. the amount Of the
invoice, less > per cent oil. TURNKEY
Bros. q Co. refused TO accept the draft
attached to the original bill of ladlng
and same was returned to the Drum
mond Tobacco company, and on the 9th
Of February, 1851. Turnkey, Bros. Il
Co. failed. and on that day II became
publicly known that they had failed and
the DrummOnd Tobacco company or
dered the goods stopped in transit On
the 9th the plaintiffs presented the du-
plicate bill of lading TO defendant and
was told that they also had II letter from
TURNKEY Bros. Il Co., notifying 1t of the
transfer Of the tobacco to plaintiffs on
the nth OF the same month. Plaintiffs
again demanded the tobacco and were
told by the defendants agent that the
goods had been stopped In transit by the
DrummOnd Tobacco company, and the
tobacco shipped back TO ST. Louis and
delivered TO the Drummond Tobacco
company.
1t is evident that TURNKEY Bros. Il Co.
were in failing circumstances at the
time they gave the order for the
goods to the Drummond Tobacco
company. The plaintiffs bring this suit
and seek TO recover OF defendant
the value OF the goods, claiming to he an
Innocent purchase for value.
The question first presented then is:
Is the purchaser in the eyes OF the law
the owner Of the goods by virtue OF his
having the duplicate bill of lading as
signed to him and having paid there
fore? The position taken by defendant
is that the duplicate bill of lading does
not represent the goods but the original
one does, and plaintiff purchased ut his
| peril and that no title to the goods
| passed to the plaintiff, and therefore the
Drummond Tobacco company rightfully
exercised their right of stoppage "in
| transftu.n
If this position be well taken that ends
| the controversy.
Bills of ladng are often spoken of as
negotiable. This il not, legally speak
| ing. true; they are for specific articles
and not payable in money and are not,
strictly speaking, negotiable CONNER
Cial paper. (See Daniel on negotiable
instruments, second edition, page GO
| section l12G)
They are assignabe, and the bill Of
lading represents the property and II
the consignee assigns the bin of lading to
an innocent purchaser for valuable con-
sideration the title to the goods passes
to the purchaser, and such sale would
defeat the right ofstoppage "in transitdn
| Of the cOnslgnor.
The difficulty arises in determining
which IL the bill of lading that repre-
sents the goods and the transfer of
which carries with it the legal title.
They are called "orlgnal." duplicate
original" and "triplicate original This
in one sense is true, they all contain n
! Ifttlll lhl lut kbbAF w lut lININIlOTIN-
tiOn company as well as a contract 10
transport the goods to the place of de-
livery and to deliver to the person en-
titled thereto. (See authority last cited.
cction l72S) 1t cannot be argued that
each one OF these bills independent OF
the other represents the goods. II this
proposition he conceded, II follows us a
logical sequence that either some one OF
them must represent the goods. or that
the three or more (us the case may be-
taken together represent the goods. In
the cases to which my attention has
been called the term used is, when the
bill of lading has been transferred to an
innocent purchaser for value, etc, using
the singular number. As | have said
these bills of lading are not strictly
negotiable, but were assignable, and in
some respects likened In the commercial
world to original and duplicate bills OF
exchange.
1t will hardly be contended however
that prudent man would purchase a
duplicate bill Of exchange without hav-
ing first ascertaned thar the original
had not been paid. The fact that the
second exchange Is presented, suggests
and gives notice that there Is an orlgi-
nal, which, If paid, renders the dupli,
cate of no value.
Ought this rule to be applied here
either in determining which Is, or what
constitutes the bill OF lading, or with
reference to the "bona tdesn of the pur.
chaser. 1t is evident that the consign
Ors did not intend to part with their title
to the goods unless Turnkey Bros 4 Co.
accepted the draft drawn upon them
see Daniel on negotiable securities
second edition, section l73i-- and Il
this controversy were between the con
4 a..