Case Name: DIAMOND ROLLER MILLS v. MOODY
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1912-07-23
Citations: 63 Or. 90
Docket Number: 
Parties: DIAMOND ROLLER MILLS v. MOODY.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 90–100

Head Matter:
Argued July 10,
decided July 23,
rehearing denied October 8, 1912
DIAMOND ROLLER MILLS v. MOODY.
(125 Pac. 284.)
(126 Pac. 984.)
Warehousemen — Delivery by Warehouseman — Wrongful Delivery —Damages.
1. W'here a warehouseman, receiving wheat under an agreement to keep it until called for by a miller who had purchased the same for his mill, made a delivery without demand from the miller and at a time the mill was being repaired, the warehouseman was liable for the damages occasioned by his failure to keep the wheat until called for, but he was not responsible for expenses incurred by the miller in unloading the cars, in the absence of anything to show that the warehouseman was required to unload.
ON REHEARING.
Appeal and Error — Determination—Remand of Cause.
2. Under Article VII, Section 3, of the constitution as amended (see Laws 1911, p. 7), providing that, where a hill of exceptions with the whole testimony is attached, the Supreme Court may enter judgment which should have been rendered below, the cause must be remanded, upon reversal, when the bill of exceptions does not include the entire testimony.
Appeal and Error — Determination—Erroneous Instructions.
3. When the jury makes an incorrect finding on correct instructions, the judgment may be altered on appeal; but where the instructions are incorrect and probably misguided the jury in producing an erroneous verdict the cause must be remanded.
Warehousemen — Wrongful Delivery — Nature of Wrong — “Torts.”
4. A warehouseman, who had received wheat for which he had issued receipts, shipped the wheat to the assignee of the receipts without any demand by the assignee. Section 6038, L. O. L., provides that no person operating any warehouse shall ship, or in any manner remove from his custody, any grain for which a receipt is given, without written consent of the holder of the receipt; and succeeding sections make the receipts negotiable, and violations of the provisions of the act punishable by fine and imprisonment. Held, that the shipment in this case did not fall within the purview of the statute, because there was no conversion by the warehouseman; and the shipment, although possibly a breach of contract, was not a “tort,” which is sometimes defined as a breach of duty established by municipal law for which a suit for damages may be maintained.
From Wasco: William L. Bradshaw, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Moore.
This is an action to recover money. The complaint charges, in effect, that the Diamond Roller Mills is a corporation; that the defendant M. A. Moody, at all the times stated, was operating on the line of the Great Southern Railway at Boyd and at Rice’s Station public warehouses; that . between September 7, 1908, and October 3d of that year, the plaintiff had on storage in these warehouses a quantity of wheat which it had purchased from persons who had deposited the grain “subject to be shipped at the order of the owner thereof, but not otherwise”; that between such dates the defendant without any order therefor, in the absence of the return of any warehouse receipt, and against plaintiff’s protest wrongfully loaded on cars of such railway wheat and unlawfully shipped it to the plaintiff at The Dalles, Oregon, whereby the grain arrived at a time when plaintiff was unable to unload it, and was compelled to leave it on the cars until the demurrage amounted to $111, which sum plaintiff was obliged to pay the railway company in order to obtain the wheat; “that, in addition thereto, the plaintiff was compelled to employ extra men to unload said cars at the time when the same was received, but which the plaintiff would not have been required to have employed but for said wrongful act of the defendant in shipping the same against the wish and without the order of said plaintiff, as aforesaid,” and that plaintiff was also obliged to expend $19.20 for electric power used in unloading and storing the wheat which sum it would not have been compelled to incur but for the wrongful shipment at a time when plaintiff did not have its elevators in use or its mill in operation. Judgment was demanded for the sum of $184.20.
The answer admitted that plaintiff was a corporation; that at the times and places stated in the complaint the defendant operated public warehouses; that plaintiff had on deposit therein wheat purchased from persons who had stored it to be delivered pursuant to their orders; that defendant shipped the wheat to plaintiff,’ but denied that such shipment was wrongful or unlawful. All other allegations of the complaint were denied. For a further defense and by way of counterclaim it was averred that defendant had the right at any time to terminate the bailment and redeliver the wheat; that, acting upon such authority, he shipped the grain to plaintiff, which accepted and received it and that the loading and shipping thereof was reasonably worth 50 cents per ton, aggregating $340.73, no part of which had been paid and for which sum judgment was demanded.
The reply put in issue the allegations of new matter in the answer, and, the cause having been tried, a verdict was returned for plaintiff in the sum of $166.20, and, judgment having been rendered thereon, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
For appellant there was a brief over the name of Mr. William H. Wilson, with an oral argument by Mr. John M. Pipes.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. Frederick W. Wilson and Messrs. Bennett & Sinnott, with an oral argument by Mr. Wilson.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the court.
The bill of exceptions shows that the plaintiff owns flour mills, located at The Dalles, and, in order to keep them in operation, it purchased from various persons quantities of wheat which they had stored in the defendant's warehouses at Boyd and at Rice's Station on the line of the Great Southern Railway. To each of such depositors the defendant issued a warehouse receipt, of which the following is a copy, in blank, to wit:
"No.-. Original.-Station, Oregon-191 — .
"Received for storage from - sacks of wheat, oats, barley, gross weight-lbs., which amount, kind and grade of grain will be delivered to his order on return of this receipt any (and) payment of storage and hauling charges, and repayment of advance with interest. Loss or damage from fire or unavoidable casualties at owner's risk. Grade-. Condition-. -."
Without the return of any of these receipts and against plaintiff's consent the defendant loaded qnd shipped 13 cars of wheat which arrived at The Dalles September 7, 1908, when plaintiff's mills were being repaired, and in consequence of the work of restoration the grain could not then be stored in its elevators, but was allowed to remain on the cars until a demurrage of $111 was due the railway company and had to be paid before the wheat would be delivered. Thereafter the defendant loaded and shipped to plaintiff in the same manner 12 other car loads of wheat, but, the mills having been repaired in the meantime, no delay was experienced in unloading the grain. James Snipes, the plaintiff's general manager, was interrogated by its counsel respecting the charge for extra labor, as set forth in the complaint. An objection to the inquiry on the ground that it was not within the pleadings and was incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial having been overruled and an exception allowed, the witness stated in substance that in order to repair the mills and put them in operation as soon as possible, so as to unload the wheat without further delay, all the regular employes were put at work in making the necessary restoration, and he was compelled to engage three extra men at $2.25 per day to whom was paid $54 for unloading and storing the wheat in plaintiff's elevators and mills.
Assuming without deciding that the defendant had no authority to terminate the bailment at pleasure as is alleged'in the answer, and for that reason if he shipped and delivered, to the person lawfully entitled thereto, wheat without his order evidenced by a return of the warehouse receipt, a liability would arise for all damages that would necessarily result from a breach of the agreement to keep the grain until called for, we do not see how the defendant would be responsible for any expense incurred in unloading the cars. The warehouse receipt does not contain any provision to that effect, nor does the complaint state any fact from which such a charge could legitimately result. Keeping all the regular employes at work in making the necessary repairs to the mill, in order to put it in proper condition for operation as soon as possible, and employing extra men to unload the cars, may have diminished the demurrage which could have been collected. Such decrease of outlay is not a sufficient justification for imposing upon the defendant the expense incurred in discharging the wheat, in the absence of a contract requiring a performance of that service by him. It was incumbent upon plaintiff to minimize as much as possible the damages which it might sustain by reason of the alleged wrongful shipment of the grain. Wheat is a commodity which at the time of year specified herein could have been procured in any amount in the open market in Oregon, and, if the mills were not then in proper condition to receive the grain when it arrived, it would seem that plaintiff could have sold the wheat for the then current price, thereby possibly avoiding all demurrage, and could thereafter have purchased other wheat of the same quality and of equal quantity at a time when the grain could have been received and stored in its elevators, and thereupon charged and recovered from the defendant the damages thus sustained. But, however this may be, it is impossible to see how the defendant was liable for the employment of extra laborers engaged to unload the wheat when that duty devolved upon the plaintiff. The same may be said also with respect to the outlay for electric power used to unload and store the grain.
Believing that an error was committed in admitting the testimony so objected to, the judgment must be reversed, and, as the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence given in the lower court, the cause is remanded for a new trial. Reversed.