Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-05-07
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN,
Exclusively for virginian- Pilot.)
WHITE V. BOYD.

Supreme Court OF North Carolina
March ii, 1899.
KEEPERS OF A TOBACCO SALES
ROOM WHO SELL A CONSIGN-
MENT OF TOBACCO ON COMMITS
SION ARE NOT WAREHOUSEMEN
BUT AGENTS OF CONSIGNOR.
SUCH AGENTS ARE LIABLE TO
THE NIORTGAGEE AND LAND
LORD If THE TOBACCO SOLD IS
SUBJECT TO ~ MORTGAGE AND
CROP LIEN.
This action was brought to recover
tho proceeds OF the sale by the defen-
dants of certain leaf tobacco, alleged
70 have been the property of the plain
tiirs, and to have been sold by the de-
PENDANTS without the knowledge or con-
sent OF the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
waived the tort growing out of the al
leged conversion of the tobacco by the
defendants. ratified the sale, and
brought this action for money had and
received. which remedy they had the
right to adopt.
1t appeared from the evidence that
the defendants sold certain leaf tobacco
which was delivered to them by one
Crowder. who was both the cropper Of
the plaintiff White and Il mortgagor of
the plaintiff Green that the compen-
sation which the defendants received in
the transaction was in the nature OF
commissions on the sales: that the to-
pacco was sold without the knowledge
or consent of the plaintiffs: and that
defendants had actual notice of the
mortgage. The plaintiff White, land
lord. had also executed IL mortgage on
the tobacco to the other plaintiff. Upon
the conclusion of the plaintiffs evil
uence, on motion of defendants coun-
Sci, his honor dismissed the action
under chapter 1903. Laws 1897.
The court says:
we may say in the beginning of the
discussion that the facts in this case
90 not constitute the defendants ware
houscmen. whatever they may call tho
pace where the tobacco was sold They
sold upon commission and did not un-
oertake to store the tobacco for hire
Warehouse Is a building or place pro-
Niued Tor the receipt and storage Of
property. warehouseman is a Derson
VINO receives goods and merchandise for
hire'' Whether or not his honor WINS
correct In Diminishing the action depends
upon the nature of the business of the
dciendants; that is, whether they were
agents, under any of the various forms
vi agency, or Crowder the person who
ueiNered To them the tobacco to be sold
Al they were the agents OF Crowder
tnen. In our opinion. they are liable To
piaintlfTs for their action In the sale Of
the tobacco
The defendants contention Is that
tney were not the agents OF either
,Siowuer or the purchaser OF the to-
pacco: that they simply brought to-
Bether the buyer and Crowder. the an
parent owner Of the tobacco. for the
convenience of them both; and that IL
was In the power or Crowder TO refuse
the nid made to the auctioneer of the
deiendants by turning the tag"-that
is. by removing or displacing the scran
OF paper attached to Il small polntcd
Splinter of wood, ana stuck into the pile
Oh tobacco by an employe OF the dcfen-
ants. who followed along upon the heels
OF the auctionccr. and on which paper
was written the name OF the purchaser.
and the price bid.
The question is: Did tho dafana,,ts
when, at the request and under the di-
Tection of Crowdcr. they took posses
Sion of the tobacco convened i'm tho
mortgage, and sold 1t in the manner set
out in the evidence. become mere inter
mediaries, -mouthpcces of Crowder =
or ala they become Crowder's agents
Tor the purpose Of selling and deliver
1nG the tobacco to the purchaser? TheIr
possession of the tobacco was comnIete
IL was on their floor. 1t was .'cried
OIL by their auctioneer. They deliver
ed 1t TO the purchaser. They collected
the price from the buyeEraaa-p aid 81
10 Crowder himself, who had no right
10 receive it, All this was done under
the direction Of Crowder. The agency
was as complete as 1t could possibly be
.i'a"c. me contention that the sale
was In fact made by CroWder himself
because he had the privilege. under tho
rules governing the sales, 10 indicn;c HE
fetusal 10 accent the bid, will not stand
inc test or examination. for the reason
mat ne did not avail himself OF tho prI
ceNco the money on it. Also, the de-
remnants received COMPENSATION in
money FOR their services In making
the sale. The agency. then. being com
piete. dld The facts constitute q CON
version? Tho conversion of ncrsonal
property is complete when one Who f|''i is
not the owner cof the proncrtv deals
with It as II I've was the true owner
IN Cooley TortS. y. AL, IT, is written.
"Cne who buys property must nj hie
peru ascertain the ownership, and If
he buys Of ono who hos no author,t,
to sell. his taking possession in denio, or
the owners right Is n conversion T,ha
vendor is equally liable whether he
sells the proportv aa his own. or os
an officer or agent: and so Is tho marty
for whom he acts. If me assists in or
advises the sale. 1t is no defense
In an action OF trover that the defend
ant acted as the agent or another. r.
the principal is wrongdocr. the agent
is wrongdoes also. y person is guilty.
OF conversion who sells the nrnpcrtv
OF another without authority from The
owner. Notwithstanding he acts under
the authority OF one claiming to be tho
owner and is ignorant OF such persons
want of title"
There was error In the ruling of his
nonor in dismssnS the action. New
l-s:lElsT - f'Tr'-i1y
ANDERSON V. BITTER.