Case Name: George Carroll v. William McCleary and George S. Shaw
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1869-07-12
Citations: 19 Mich. 93
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Carroll v. William McCleary and George S. Shaw.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
George Carroll v. William McCleary and George S. Shaw.
Contract: Conditional delivery: Estoppel. Where a person contracted with, another for the purchase and delivery of wood, to be placed on the premises of a Railway Co. and inspected by their Inspector, but to remain the property of the vendor till paid for, and then contracted with the company to sell and deliver to them a larger amount of similar wood at the same place, and the company’s agents, with his co-operation, appropriated the wood of his vendor which he had not paid for; Held, that this amounted to conversion and that no estoppel arose from the circumstances to prevent suit therefor.
Heard and decided July 12.
Error of St. Clair Circuit.
Tbis was an action of trover for the conversion of a quantity of wood which had been deposited on the line of the Grand Trunk Eailway Company by one David Hickey, in pursuance of a contract between him and MeCleary, one of the defendants; who, as was known to Hickey, had a contract with the Eailway company for the delivery of a much larger quantity of wood. Both contracts required that the wood should be subject to the inspection of the Inspector of the Eailway Company; and by Hickey’s contract with MeCleary, the wood was to remain Hickey’s until paid for. A part of the wood delivered was paid for to Hickey and then Hickey sold the remainder to the plaintiff in this suit. For the conversion of this remaining portion of the wood, this action was brought.
The defense was that the delivery of the wood on the premises of the Grand Trunk Company was in effect a delivery on McOleary’s contract with the company. The cause was tried before a referee who found for the defendant, Shaw, and against MeCleary. On exceptions this finding was set aside by the Circuit Judge and a judgment rendered in favor of both defendants; which is brought into this Court by writ of error.
Athinson Brothers, for plaintiff in error.
Mitchell & Farr and, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
The Court
held that it sufficiently appeared from the facts found by the referee, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover and ordered a judgment in his favor for the value of the wood.