Court Opinion

ID: 9618511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:13:16.836192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:29.983404
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Chief Justice
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result of allowing the plaintiff to recover her ring. But because I *694am somewhat unsure of some of the matters recited in the main opinion, including the effect of provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, I desire to state as succinctly as possible the reasons which persuade me to support this Court’s decision.
First, I acknowledge the soundness of the proposition that, generally, where a loss must be borne by one of two innocent parties, it should fall upon the one who made the loss possible; and that this would suggest that it be borne by plaintiff, Mrs. Manger, who delivered the ring into the possession of Mr. Davis. But like all general rules, its purpose is to serve the interests of justice, rather than to defeat them; and accordingly, it is subject to exceptions in circumstances where defeating justice would be the result.
The special circumstances that persuade me to support this Court’s decision are these:
First, the ring in question was not any ordinary item of personal property or merchandise. It was something so extraordinary in composition and value that it is properly regarded as unique.
Second, Mr. Davis was but a consignee who had no right to sell or to pledge the ring, but only to obtain a prospective purchaser.
Third, he was not regularly engaged in that business.
Because of the foregoing, the exercise of ordinary care and prudence would require that anyone dealing with such a ring should act with commensurate caution. If the defendants had adhered to that standard, they would have discovered the facts. Accordingly, they are not in a position to assert estoppel against the plaintiff. It is for these reasons that I agree that she should be entitled to recover possession of her ring.