Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-09-22
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY w. 3. MARTIN
ExCLUsIvELY FOR
vIRcINiAN-PiLoT.
Notes of Cases Recently Decided
Which Are Of interest to
Our People.
SLOAN v. c. S. RY. CO.

supreme Court OF North Carolina.
May /, 1900.
a PROVISION IN A BILL OF LA
DING TO NOTIFY" A CERTAIN
PERSON GAVE THAT PERSON A
RIGHT TO INSPECT THE GOODS
COVERED BY THE BILL.
The complaint AYERS that one War
lick had q contract with the Henrietta
Cotton Mills for the purchase of cot
ton, under which he bought lot of
therefor Ito order. notify S. B. Tan
ner, treasurer" (who was treasurer of
the Henrietta Mills): that he drew q
draft on said Tanner, treasurer, for the
price of the cotton. which he Endorsed,
with the bill of lading attached. for
value. to the plaintiff. 1t is further
alleged that the defendant company
%rongfully and carelessly permitted
the Henrietta Mills to examine the cot
ton without production of the bill of
laoing, In consequence whereof the said
Henrietta Mills refused to accept the
cotton and pay the draft. as they
otnerwise would have done; and also
that for many days after the said mills
refused to accept the cotton the de-
PENDANT carelessly and negligently re-
tanned part of the cotton unloaded in
the cars, without notifying the plain
thiAs Civ required the Dlatn-
TIL to pay 500 demurrage therefor,
which he paid under protest; and al
ieges that by reason of the above neg
ilgence and wrongful acts he has sus-
tained altogether $S42.30 damages. The
defendant demurs. in substance, be-
cause 1t was not wrongful act to per-
INIT the Henrietta Mills to examine the
cotton. and that, IL 1t were, 1t does not
sufhciently appear from the complaint
now any legal or actionable injury
was done to the plaintiff and that it
does not sufficiently appear from the
complaint how the requirement of pay
ment or demurrage was wrongful The
court below sustained the demurrer,
and dismissed the action.
The Court says:
The plaintiff does not contend that.
II the cotton had been consigned to the
Henrietta Mills. 1t would have been
wrongful to have permitted It to eX-
anime the cotton. but says that the bill
of lading, being ito order, notify S. b.
Tanner, treasurer" was notice that
the plaintif retained ownership till the
production of the bill of lading by said
TANNER treasurer of the Henrietta
Mills. This point might be we'll taken
II the action were for wrongful de-
livery to the cotton mills without the
production of the bill of Iading in
dorsed to the mills or it's treasurer, but
the request to notify" certainly con-
AciIeu upon the cotton mills as full
right TO inspect the cotton as IL Il had
been the consignee. No injury to the
cotton from the inspection is averred.
Constituting the complaint literally, as
is now required (Code section 260), 1t
means. IL 1t legally means anything.
that by reason of permitting the Hen
rietta Mills and Its agents to inspect
the cotton they were made dissatisfied.
and refused payment. whereas. If they
had been compelled to buy pig in
a poke" the cotton would have been
accepted, and the draft paid II the
cotton was wrongfully rejected, the
plaintiffs cause of action is against the
Henrietta Mills. for. as assignee of
Warlick, he stood in Warlick's shoes.
If II was rightfully rejected. it cannot
be commended that there was n cause
of action. for even If the Henrietta
Mills had taken the cotton without op-
portunty OF inspection. it could have
Immediately recovered back from the
plaintiff. assignee of the bill of lading
for any deficiency in the quality or
weight of the cotton or otherwise.