Court Opinion

ID: 9810008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:38:20.278554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:19.671355
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.,
concurring: When goods are delivered to a common carrier for transportation on an open bill of lading, the presumption is that the title to the goods passes to the consignee. In such case, if there is no restrictive condition, he, and not the consignor, is the aggrieved party, in whose name a suit for loss or damage must be brought. Ober v. Smith, 78 N. C., 313; Gwyn v. R. R., 85 N. C., 430; Stone v. R. R., 144 N. C., 220; Mfg. Co. v. R. R., 149 N. C., 261; Buggy Corporation v. R. R., 152 N. C., 119; Ellington v. R. R., 170 N. C., 36. But it is open to the consignor to show his right to institute and main*174tain tbe action. He may sue i£ title is retained, or if tbe goods are to be sold for bis benefit, or if be bas contracted to deliver tbe goods to tbe consignee, or if title is to pass only wben tbe goods are received, or if tbe consignee is to inspect tbe goods before tbe purchase price is payable, or if a draft attached to a bill of lading is not paid by tbe consignee, or if tbe goods are rejected and thrown back on tbe consignor. Summers v. R. R., 138 N. C., 295; Rollins v. R. R., 146 N. C., 153; Cardwell v. R. R., ibid., 219; Davis v. R. R., 147 N. C., 68; Robertson v. R. R., 148 N. C., 323; Box Factory v. R. R., ibid., 421; Mfg. Co. v. R. R., supra; Elliott v. R. R., 155 N. C., 236; Aydlett v. R. R., 172 N. C., 47; Trading Co. v. R. R., 178 N. C., 175; Collins v. R. R., ante, 141.
There was at least some evidence from which tbe jury might have inferred that tbe bog was rejected by tbe consignee and in contemplation of law thrown back on tbe bands of tbe consignor. R. R. v. Guano Co., 103 Ga., 590; R. R. v. Electric Co., 55 Ky., 918; Buggy Corporation v. R. R., supra; Aydlett v. R. R., supra.
But there is another reason for sustaining tbe action. Whether tbe plaintiff be tbe consignor or tbe consignee there can be only one recovery on tbe alleged cause of action, and tbe defendant, if protected against paying for tbe property more than once, should have no special concern as to any diversity of interest between tbe possible claimants. Stone v. R. R., supra; Rollins v. R. R., supra. Tbe consignee not only refused to pay for tbe bog because it was spoiled, but be testified at tbe trial on behalf of tbe consignor. He bas interposed no objection to tbe plaintiff’s recovery, and bas apparently disclaimed any personal interest in tbe shipment. In these circumstances be will be deemed to have assented to consignor’s right to maintain tbe action. At any rate, be does not claim to be tbe party aggrieved. Tbe apposite principle is thus stated; “It bas been held that, in a suit by tbe consignor against tbe carrier to recover tbe loss caused by damage to tbe goods shipped, where no exception bas been filed in limine to tbe right of such consignor to sue, and where tbe consignee appears and testifies for plaintiff on tbe merits, tbe defense by tbe carrier that tbe consignor, not being tbe owner of tbe goods, bas no cause of action, cannot avail it, since tbe only object of tbe carrier in seeking to have tbe proper plaintiff is to avoid double payment for tbe damage claimed; and tbe action of tbe consignee in testifying for plaintiff consignor is tantamount to an acquiescence by tbe consignee, and be is thereby estopped from recovering on tbe same cause of action.” 10 C. J., 348.
Clarkson, J., concurs in this opinion.