Hayden v. Davis

Terry, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Burnett, J., and Field, J., concurring. The defendant, who is master of a vessel, received from plaintiff’s agent, at Petaluma, certain wheat, to be transmitted to plaintiff at San Francisco.

Defendant failed to deliver the wheat on demand, and plaintiff instituted this action for its recovery.

On the trial, defendant offered to prove by the depositions of several witnesses that the wheat in question was the property of one Edwards; that plaintiff had obtained possession of it by fraud and false representations; and that Edwards, the true owner, had forbidden defendant to deliver it to plaintiff.

The Court held that defendant having received the property from plaintiff could not set up title in a third party to defeat the claim of his bailor, and rejected the evidence of ownership in Edwards.

The general n^le is that in an action by the bailor the bailee will not be allowed to set up title in a third party.

There is, however, an exception to this rule in eases where the bailor’s possession was obtained by fraud.

In Hendman i\\ Wilcock, (9 Bingham, 378 3ST.,) defendant was employed to sell certain goods then in plaintiff’s possession.

These goods were claimed by the assignees of a bankrupt, and notice of the claim given to defendant before the sale. The jury found that the possession of plaintiff was obtained b)r means of a fraudulent collusion with the insolvent, a verdict for defendant was entered, with leave to plaintiff to move for judgment for the amount of sale, if the Court should be of opinion that the defence was not admissible. After argument before the Court of Common Pleas, it was held that the evidence was properly admitted.

The case of King v. Richards, (6 Wheaton, 418,) is directly in point. The defendants were common carriers, and receipted for the goods, to be delivered in Philadelphia, to the order of the assignor of plaintiff. Defendant offered to show that the goods were the property of one Lasala, and that the possession of Hul & Co. had been fraudulently acquired, and that the goods had been delivered to the owner before notice of the assignment of the bill of lading to plaintiff.

This evidence was rejected, and judgment had for plaintiff.

On appeal, the judgment was reversed. The Court said : “If the bailee receive the goods from the bailor, innocently, under the impression made by the bailor that he is the owner thereof,