Court Opinion

ID: 6414938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 11:55:27.296005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:30.577602
License: Public Domain

Chapman, J.
The use of elevators for the storage of grain, has introduced some new methods of dealing, but the rights of parties who adopt these methods must be determined by the principles of the common law. The proprietors of the elevator are the agents of the various parties for whom they act. When several parties have stored various parcels of grain in the elevator, and it is put into one mass, according to a usage to which they must be deemed to have assented, they are tenants in common of the grain. Each is entitled to such a proportion as the quantity placed there by him bears to the whole mass. When one of them sells a certain number of bushels, it is a sale of property owned by him in common. It is not necessary to take it away in order to complete the purchase. If the vendor gives an order on the agents to deliver it to the vendee, and the agents accept the order, and agree with the vendee to store the property for him, and give him a receipt therefor, the delivery is thereby complete, and the property belongs to the vendee. The vendor has nothing more to do to complete the sale, nor has he any further dominion over the property. The agent holds it as the property of the vendee, owned by him in common with the other grain in the elevator. It is elementary law that a tenant in common of personal property in the hands of an agent may sell the whole or any part of his interest in the property, by the method above stated, or by any other method equivalent to it. Actual separation and taking away are not necessary to complete the sale. As to the property sold, the agent acts for a new principal, and holds his property for him. The law is the same, whether the proprietors are numerous or the vendor and vendee are owners of the whole. If the vendee resells the whole or a part of what he has purchased, his vendee may, by the same course of dealing, become also a tenant in common as to the part which he has bought.
This is not like the class of sales where the vendor retains the possession, because there is something further for him to do such as measuring, or weighing, or marking, as in Scudder v *381Worster, 11 Cush. 573; nor like the case of Weld v. Gutter, 2 Gray, 195, where the whole of a pile of coal was delivered to the vendee in order that he might make the separation. But the property is in the hands of an agent; and the same person who was the agent of the vendor to keep, becomes the agent of the vendee to keep; and the possession of the agent becomes the possession of the principal. Hatch v. Bayley, 12 Cush. 27, and cases cited. The tenancy in common results from the method of storage which has been agreed upon, and supersedes the necessity of measuring, weighing or separating the part sold.
No delivery is necessary to a tenant in common. Beaumont v. Crane, 14 Mass. 400.
Upon these principles, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount due them for the property thus sold and delivered to the defendants. The damage occasioned to this property by the fire must be borne by the defendants, as owners of the property.
Exceptions sustained. .