Beall v. Bekins Van & Storage Co. (1917) · DecisionDepot

Beall v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal May 12, 1917 No. Civ. No. 1820.Published

Before: Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was liable for the loss of the plaintiff's goods because it breached its contractual obligation to prepare the goods for shipment and deliver them to the carrier on the agreed date, regardless of whether it acted as a warehouseman or a carrier.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding the terms of the contract for packing and shipping goods.
Whether the defendant's failure to deliver the goods to the carrier on the agreed date was excused by the plaintiff's alleged failure to crate certain items.
Whether the defendant's liability is determined by its status as a warehouseman or a carrier given the breach of its contractual obligations.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether it acted as a warehouse-keeper or as a carrier, it did not comply with its agreement, and its failure to comply was the proximate cause of the damage to respondent.”

Synopsis

Contract for Shipment of Goods—Delay Caused from; Lack of Crating—Destruction by Dire—Liability for Loss.—Where a van and storage company in the delivery of certain household effects to a railroad company for the purpose of shipment, neglected to crate certain portions of the goods, as required by its contract, in time to get the goods in the freight depot before it closed for the day, and thereupon stored them in one of their warehouses for safekeeping overnight, and the. warehouse was destroyed by fire before the next morning and the goods with it, the company is liable for the value of such goods.

[653]

WORKS, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an appeal from the judgment and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.

Appellant and respondent entered into a contract pursuant to which the latter delivered to the former, in two separate lots, certain goods and household effects, all of which were to have been shipped, at the same time, to Lillis, California. On the day that the Van and Storage Company received the second lot of goods it did not deliver them, together with the first lot,- to the Southern Pacific Company, as Beall claims it was its duty to do, but stored them in its warehouse for safekeeping overnight. The warehouse was destroyed by fire before the next morning and Beall’s property with it. This action was brought to recover the value of the articles and judgment went for Beall. -

Under certain very general specifications of particulars, to the sufficiency of which respondent objects, appellant claims that the findings are not supported by the evidence. No one finding is pointed out as lacking such support, but the assault is upon them in general. There are twenty-eight findings and but four specifications of particulars. The language of each of the latter it is most difficult to apply to any finding or findings. Notwithstanding such a situation, we have endeavored so to construe the specifications as to give appellant a hearing on the merits, in accordance with the more recent rulings on the subject of the sufficiency of specifications of particulars.

(American Type Founders’ Co.

Packer,

130 Cal. 459, [62 Pac. 744];

McEwen

Occidental Life Ins. Co.,

172 Cal. 6, [155 Pac.

86]; Pacific Gas & Elec. Co.

Rollins,

Beall v. Bekins Van & Storage Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

WORKS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief