Case Name: CHARLES E. GREENE, Respondent, v. DANIEL MEYER and J. F. BAKER, Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1877-01-27
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 41
Docket Number: No. 4879
Parties: CHARLES E. GREENE, Respondent, v. DANIEL MEYER and J. F. BAKER, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 41–43

Head Matter:
CHARLES E. GREENE, Respondent, v. DANIEL MEYER and J. F. BAKER, Appellants.
No. 4879;
January 27, 1877.
Trover—Proof of Right to Possession.—In an action of trover the plaintiff must prove himself to be entitled to the immediate possession of the goods alleged to have been converted.
APPEAL from Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County.
This was an action of trover. E. E. Morgan’s Sons were San Francisco commission and shipping merchants engaged in chartering ships and receiving on board vessels controlled by them wheat and other goods for delivery at European ports, sales there to be for the account of and at the risk of the owners of the goods, the latter agreeing with these shipping merchants on the rates to be charged. Baker was master of the ship “Pride of the Port,” whereon the wheat, out of the shipping of which the case originated, was placed by the Morgans for transportation under their agreement with the plaintiff and his assignors to Cork, Ireland. Meyer was a banker in San Francisco. After their making the shipment referred to in the decision, the Morgans, being deeply in debt to Meyer already, increased the indebtedness largely and gave him the bill of lading as collateral. Meyer knew at the time what the character of the Morgans’ business was and had every reason to know that the wheat was the property of them only in a representative capacity, also that they were insolvent. The suit was begun immediately after the making of the loan; the trial court gave judgment against Meyer, but not against Baker.
Delos Lake for respondent; Howe & Rosenbaum and G. F. & W. H. Sharp for appellants.

Opinion:
McKINSTRY, J.
At the trial it was admitted: "The plaintiff and his assignors delivered the wheat described in the complaint to Morgan's Sons, to be shipped by them to England for sale. Morgan's Sons placed the same on board the 'Pride of the Port' for shipmént in accordance with said agreement. ' '
The wheat was shipped by Morgan's Sons, and the bill of lading ran to them.
The defendant Baker was in actual possession of the wheat, with the right to earn the freight thereon. Neither the plaintiff nor his assignors have had the right to the immediate possession of the wheat at any time since the same was shipped. In this class of actions the principle is of universal application that the plaintiff must prove himself to be entitled to the immediate possession of the goods alleged to have been converted.
The court below properly entered judgment in favor of one defendant, but should have rendered a like judgment in favor of the other.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded with an order to the court below to enter judgment in favor of the defendant Meyer.
I concur: Niles, J.
I dissent: Rhodes, J.