Atkinson v. the Charles Nelson Co. (1919) · DecisionDepot

Atkinson v. the Charles Nelson Co.

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

California Court of Appeal May 28, 1919 No. Civ. No. 2568.Published

Before: Richards

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was liable for conversion because the evidence supported the inference that the party who received and resold the plaintiff's spars acted as the defendant's agent, and the defendant failed to rebut this inference.

Issues

Whether the defendant is liable for the conversion of spars taken by an independent contractor acting under the defendant's instructions.
Whether the evidence sufficiently established an agency relationship between the defendant and the party who received and resold the spars.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the plaintiff was entitled to rest upon the inference of Swayne’s agency which thus arose; and the burden was, in our opinion, cast upon the defendant, to rebut such inference by proof of the real relationship between itself and Swayne.”

“the plaintiff had made out a case of conversion when it had traced its missing spars into the custody of Swayne, who had resold them”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[305]

RICHARDS, J.

This is an. appeal from,, a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in an action for damages for the alleged conversion of certain spars.

The plaintiff’s assignor had delivered to the United States government at the Mare Island Navy Yard a number of spars eighty-five feet in length. .Six of these had been rejected by the government, but were lying at the boom of the Mare Island Navy Yard pending their removal by the plaintiff’s assignor. The defendant had also and about the same time delivered a number of spars of the maximum length of sixty-five feet to the United States government at said navy yard, of which twenty had been rejected, and these were also lying at the boom of the navy yard awaiting removal. This was the condition of things on May 17, 1914, when the defendant wrote the following letter to the general storekeeper in charge of whatever spars were at the boom of the navy yard, viz.:

“S. F. May 17, 1914.

“General Storekeeper, Mare Island:

“Please deliver to Oakland Launch

Towboat Company twenty rejected spars.

“The Charles Nelson Co.,

“Per James K. Nelson.”

This letter, or order, was delivered to the captain in charge of a tug of the Oakland Launch and Towboat Company named therein, who was at the same time instructed by the defendant to deliver the spars named in said order when received by him to one R. B. Swayne in Oakland. In executing this order and instruction the captain of the tugboat of the Oakland Launch and Tugboat Company proceeded to Mare Island and there received from the said storekeeper twenty spars, of which, however, six were the rejected spars of the plaintiff’s assignor, and these he transported to Oakland and delivered to said Swayne, who sold the entire lot to other parties. Later the plaintiff, to whom the six rejected spars had been assigned, sent a tugboat to Mare Island for the purpose of having his spars towed to San Francisco, and then for the first time learned that his spars had been delivered to the Oakland Launch and Tugboat Company on the defendant’s order. Upon learning these facts the plaintiff, at first orally and then in writing, demanded of the defendant reimbursement for the

Atkinson v. the Charles Nelson Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

RICHARDS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief