Goodwin v. Scannell
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Warehousemen who give their receipt for goods on storage, are estopped from setting up a want of segregation of the goods receipted for from other goods, in an action against them by the holder of the receipt, for a conversion of the goods by a seizure in an action against a vendor of the plaintiff.
And this, although the warehousemen are the attaching creditors, and although the sheriff making the seizure was not liable, by reason of their being no segregation.
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court. Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The defendants, being warehousemen, and having given their storage [543]receipt for a specific number of barrels, cannot set up the want of segregation to avert their liability. By their receipt, they have charged themselves and are estopped. If a warehouseman would protect himself from liability in such cases, he can do so by describing the goods as part of a larger lot and unseparated, or in bulk, with the goods of others. Such a description would give notice to any transferee of the warehouse receipt, of the condition of the goods, and enable him to use the necessary diligence in obtaining the title to a specific property.
This case is the same as that of Adams et al. v. Gorham et al., decided at the last January term. 6 Cal. R.
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)