Court Opinion

ID: 88521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:01:41+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.452188
License: Public Domain

81 U.S. 98 (1871)
14 Wall. 98
THE THAMES.
Supreme Court of United States.

*102 Messrs. Barney, Butler, and Parsons, for the appellant.
Mr. B.F. Lee, contra.
*104 Mr. Justice STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.
The engagement of the ship with the shipper was to deliver the cotton in New York to order. In regard to this there is no doubt. Such was the express stipulation of the bills of lading, which were given on the 28th of January, 1868, when the cotton was received on shipboard. On that day Gilbert Van Pelt purchased the cotton in Savannah from Brady & Moses, and settled for it by giving in payment his draft upon the firm of Bennett, Van Pelt & Co., in New York, of which firm he was a member. The draft was drawn at fifteen days' sight in favor of the libellant, Billopp Seaman, cashier, or order, and it was discounted by Brady & Moses with money of the Atlanta National Bank, which they had in hand for the purpose of purchasing bills on New York on the bank's account. The price of the cotton was *105 thus, in substance, paid by money which Van Pelt obtained from the bank, as the proceeds of his draft. At the time when he drew the draft he also indorsed upon the bills of lading which the ship had given for the cotton, an order directing its delivery to Billopp Seaman, cashier, in whose favor the draft was drawn, and delivered them with the draft to Brady & Moses. They were made out in triplicate, as is usual, and, by them all, the ship undertook to deliver the cotton shipped to order. Two of them had been delivered to Van Pelt, the shipper, and the third was retained by the ship. That retained by the ship, it is true, when produced at the trial in the court below, was found to have, at its foot, the memorandum, "for Bennett, Van Pelt & Co.," which is not upon those delivered to the shipper. How that memorandum came there is not explained. No witness has testified in whose handwriting it is, but it is proved not to have been in that of any of the ship's agents at Savannah who signed the bills of lading and who made the contract for carriage. This, however, is of little importance. The contract between the ship and the shipper is that which is contained in the bills of lading delivered. The ship's bill was designed only for its information and convenience; not for evidence, as between the parties, of what their agreement was. If it differs from the others, they must be considered as the true and only evidence of the contract.
The proofs in the case leave no reasonable doubt that the bills of lading were indorsed to the libellant in order to transfer to him the cotton as a security for the payment of the draft at its maturity. Gilbert Van Pelt alone asserts the contrary. His testimony, it must be admitted, tends to show that they were indorsed and received as security for the acceptance only of the draft. But he is directly contradicted by Moses, by Brady, and by Bruen, neither of whom has any interest in this controversy, and all of whom state that the bills of lading were indorsed to secure to Seaman the payment of the draft and not merely its acceptance. Besides, their testimony is in harmony with all the probabilities of the case. It is absurd to talk of security for the acceptance *106 of the draft. No such security was needed. It might have been accepted before it was discounted. Gilbert Van Pelt was a member of the firm upon which it was drawn, and he was at hand when it was discounted. He might then have accepted it. In addition to this it is significant that the invoice of the sale from Brady & Moses to Van Pelt was made out and receipted as if paid in cash (the draft having been turned into cash by a deduction of discount and exchange), and the advances made upon the draft were at once charged to the Atlanta National Bank. In view of all this it is incredible that the bills of lading were indorsed to Seaman merely to secure what the maker of the draft could have given on the instant. Nor ought the position of Gilbert Van Pelt to be overlooked. If the bills of lading were indorsed as security for payment of this draft, his firm has obtained from the ship delivery of the cotton through a fraudulent representation that they were the consignees, or entitled to the delivery of possession, and they sold it for cash on the day when it was thus wrongfully obtained. He is not, therefore, an unbiased witness. His testimony was given while he was under the influence of a temptation, not unnatural, to vindicate his firm from the guilt of fraudulently abstracting a large amount of property from its rightful owner. Standing as he does, in such a position, his statements are not to be credited when in conflict with the positive testimony of Brady, of Moses, and of Bruen, and when inconsistent with the strong probabilities of the case.
It must be considered, then, that by the indorsement of the bills of lading the libellant became the owner of the cotton, and that by force of the contract with the ship it was deliverable at New York only to him, or to his order. Reference to authorities to show that the effect of the indorsement was to vest such ownership in Seaman is quite unnecessary. We may, however, refer to a few.[*]
*107 The ship arrived with the cotton at the port of New York on Sunday, the 2d day of February, 1868, late in the afternoon, and on the morning of the 3d delivered it to Bennett, Van Pelt & Co. on their demand, without the production of either of the bills of lading which had been given to the shipper, and without any order from Billopp Seaman, who was the indorsee of the bills, and to whom alone, or to whose order, it could rightfully be delivered. It does not appear that any notice of the ship's arrival was given to Seaman, or that the ship made any inquiry to ascertain to whom the cotton was deliverable. It would seem that assuming the mysterious memorandum on the bill of lading retained by the ship was equivalent to an order to deliver to Bennett, Van Pelt & Co., no demand was made for the presentation of such an order, and no further inquiry for the consignee was set on foot. The consequence was that Bennett, Van Pelt & Co., having obtained the property without any right to it, sold it for cash on the day it was delivered to them, and failed within a few days afterwards.
No argument is needed to show, what is most manifest, that the delivery which was thus made was a breach of the ship's contract. By issuing bills of lading for the cotton, stipulating for a delivery to order, the ship became bound to deliver it to no one who had not the order of the shipper, and this obligation was disregarded instantly on the arrival of the ship. And it is no excuse for a delivery to the wrong persons that the indorsee of the bills of lading was unknown, if indeed he was, and that notice of the arrival of the cotton could not be given. Diligent inquiry for the consignee, at least, was a duty, and no inquiry was made. Want of notice is excused when a consignee is unknown, or is absent, or cannot be found after diligent search.[*] And if, after inquiry, the consignee or the indorsees of a bill of lading for delivery to order cannot be found, the duty of the carrier is to retain the goods until they are claimed, or to store them prudently for and on account of their owner. He may thus *108 relieve himself from a carrier's responsibility.[*] He has no right under any circumstances to deliver to a stranger.
It is said, however, that the libellant delayed presenting the bills of lading which had been indorsed to him, and delayed making any demand for the cotton until after the 19th of February, when the draft had fallen due, and when it had been dishonored. But that delay cannot justify the ship's delivery of the cotton, on the day after its arrival, to persons who had no bill of lading and no authority whatever to receive it. Had the delay been instrumental in causing such a wrongful delivery, had it been active interposition to mislead the ship, a different case might possibly have been presented. But at most the laches of the libellant was mere inaction, and the wrong delivery was in no degree due to it. The delivery was, as we have stated, made on the morning after the ship's arrival in port, and the ship's order for delivery to Bennett, Van Pelt & Co. was issued before the libellant could have known of its arrival. We say this, notwithstanding the testimony of James Van Pelt, which is plainly in conflict with the proved and conceded facts of the case. And as the cotton was sold for cash on the 3d of February, the very day of its delivery, the failure of the libellant to claim it until some weeks afterwards, wrought no injury or loss to the carrier, so far as it appears. We are, therefore, of opinion that the ship is clearly liable for the cotton to the libellant.
And we think that the libel was rightly filed in the name of Billopp Seaman. By the indorsement of the bills of lading the legal ownership of the cotton passed to him, as well as the right to control its delivery. It is a matter of no importance that the beneficial interest may have been in the bank of which he was cashier.[] The holder of a legal right may always assert it by suit, though he may be accountable to another for what he may recover. A judgment in his favor may always be pleaded in bar against a suit by the *109 beneficial owner. Besides, it is settled that the agent of absent owners may libel in admiralty, either in his own name or in that of his principals.[*]
DECREE AFFIRMED.
NOTES
[*]  Conrad v. The Atlantic Insurance Company, 1 Peters, 445; Gibson v. Stevens, 8 Howard, 384; Thompson v. Dominy, 14 Meeson & Welsby, 403; Caldwell v. Ball, 1 Term, 205; Wright v. Campbell, 4 Burrow, 2051; 1 Lord Raymond, 271; Walter v. Ross, 2 Washington's Circuit Court, 283.
[*]  Fisk v. Newton, 1 Denio, 45; Peytona, 2 Curtis, 21.
[*]  Galloway v. Hughes, 1 Bailey, 553; 1 Conklin's Admiralty, 196; Fisk v. Newton, supra.
[]  Fairfield v. Adams, 16 Pickering, 381.
[*]  Houseman v. The Schooner North Carolina, 15 Peters, 49; McKinlay v. Morrish, 21 Howard, 355; Lawrence v. Minturn, 17 Id. 100.