Case Name: C. H. RICE & SON v. PAYNE, Agent. In re YAZOO & M. V. R. CO.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1922-02-27
Citations: 151 La. 949
Docket Number: No. 25037
Parties: C. H. RICE & SON v. PAYNE, Agent. In re YAZOO & M. V. R. CO.
Judges: By the WHOLE COURT.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 151
Pages: 949–955

Head Matter:
(92 South. 395)
No. 25037.
C. H. RICE & SON v. PAYNE, Agent. In re YAZOO & M. V. R. CO.
(Feb. 27, 1922.
On the Merits, by Division B, May 8, 1922.
Rehearing Denied by Division A June 10, 1922.)
(Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)
On Motion to Dismiss Proceeding.
1. Certiorari &wkey;>57 — When only question of law presented to Court of Appeal, case reviewabie by Supreme Court, though evidence not reduced to writing.
That a case was tried de novo in the Court of Appeal and that the evidence was not reduced to writing, does not prevent review by the Supreme Court, where defendant admitted the truth of plaintiff’s allegations, and the only question before the Court of Appeal was the question of law whether the facts alleged warranted the judgment rendered.
2. Certiorari &wkey;>!5 — Cases tried in Court of Appeal on question of fact shouid not be brought to Supreme Court.
Cases tried by the Court of Appeal on a question of fact should not be brought to the Supreme Court for review, even though the evidence be in the record.
On the Merits.
3. Carriers &wkey;>229(2) — Liable to commission merchant for commission on cattle erroneously delivered to another commission merchant.
A carrier negligently delivering a shipment of cattle consigned to a commission merchant for sale to one of his competitors in business, who sold the cattle and retained the commission, was liable to the consignee for the loss of his commission, which he had virtually earned and would have received but for its negligence.
4. Carriers &wkey;>94(3) — Value of shipment to consignee is test of liability for negligence.
When freight has been received by a carrier for shipment, it becomes the property of the consignee or holder of the bill of lading, and its value to him is the test of liability of the railroad company for negligence in case of misdelivery, and, though the bill of lading be not regarded technically as a stipulation pour autrui, the carrier is bound not to cause loss to the consignee by its negligence.
5.Corporations <S=»423 — Liable for negligence of employees.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a corporation is no less liable for an injury resulting from negligence than for an injury resulting from willful wrongdoing on the part of its employees in the course of their employment.
Certiorari to Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.
Action by C. H. Rice & Son against John Barton Payne, Agent. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and the Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad Company applies for certiorari or writ of review.
Affirmed.
Lemle, Moreno & Lemle, of New Orleans (W. S. Horton, of Chicago, 111., Charles N. Burch and H. D. Minor, both of Memphis, Tenn., and Hunter C. Leake, of New Orleans, of counsel), for applicant.
E. R. Mabry, of New Orleans, for respondent.
By the WHOLE COURT.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss Proceeding.
O'NIELL, J.
This suit was brought originally in the city court. The defendant, railroad company, filed an exception of no cause of action, which was overruled. The suit was then put at issue and tried on its merits ; and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. On appeal, the exception of no cause of action was reargued and was sustained by the Court of Appeal. On application of plaintiff, a rehearing was granted, and the only question then argued was whether the petition disclosed a cause of action. The court overruled the exception of no cause of action and rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, affirming the judgment which had been rendered by the city court on the merits of the case. The-case is before us on a writ of review, issued at the instance of the defendant.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to dis miss the proceeding, on the ground that the case was tried de novo in the Court of Appeal and the evidence was not reduced to writing. The rulings in Broderick v. Blunt, 120 La. 1051, 46 South. 20, and Gaiennie Co. v. Bouchereau, 130 La. 446, 58 South. 143, are cited in support of the motion. Our opinion is that the rulings cited do not warrant a dismissal of the proceeding in this case. The ruling in each of the cases cited was, not that this court would never review a case tried de novo in the Court of Appeal, but that this court could not, without the evidence, review a case depending upon a question of fact. In truth it was never contemplated, and is not intended by this court, that any case decided by the Court of Appeal on a question of fact should be brought here for review, even though the evidence be in the record.
In the ease before us, it was and is yet conceded by the relator, railroad company, that the allegations in plaintiff's petition are true, and that the judgment complained of is correct, if the allegations disclose a cause or right of action. The opinion rendered by the Court of Appeal also shows that the only question presented is a question of law, i. e. whethen the facts alleged in plaintiff's petition warranted the judgment that was rendered.
The motion to dismiss the proceeding is overruled.
ST. PAUL, J., recused.