Scammon v. Wells, Fargo & Co.

Paterson, J. On April 12, 1875, plaintiff delivered to defendant at Downieville two sealed packages of gold-dust, of the value of $3,758.93, but which he represented to be of the value of $3,260, to be transported by defendant’s express to plaintiff’s agent, the London and San Francisco Bank, Limited, at San Francisco. The packages were placed by defendant with other packages of gold-dust, valued at about two thousand dollars, in the express-box. On April 13, 1875, the stage-coach in which the gold was being transported from Downieville was stopped by a highwayman, and robbed of all its treasure. On April 21st, the-bank (plaintiff’s agent) demanded the packages, or their value. Defendant thereupon, and without knowing that the bank was not the owner of the property, paid to it the sum of $3,260, and took a receipt from it, in which the two packages were specified as being a sealed bag valued at $160, and a sealed package valued at $3,100, “taken by robbers at Oregon Hill, April 14, 1875.” At the time this payment was made the defendant had no knowledge that the bank was not the owner of the packages, and did not know by whom the robbery was committed, or where the property was concealed. Through the efforts of the company’s chief detective, J. B. Hume, the robber was arrested and the gold-dust recovered on May 4,1875. When recovered, plaintiff’s gold-dust was mingled with other gold-dust, the property of other persons, taken by the robber, and could not be identified. On May 4th, plaintiff, having learned of the recovery of the gold, called upon defendant, and offered to return the $3,260 received from it, and demanded the packages shipped by him, stating that the dust was worth more than the value placed upon it when shipped. The agent of defendant stated [313]to plaintiff that the defendant had expended a large amount of money in recovering the property, and asked him if he was willing to stand any part of the expense. Defendant declined to do so, and has never paid, or offered to pay, any part of the expense incurred in the recovery of the gold-dust. The regular rate of the defendant for carrying gold-dust was five dollars for each one thousand dollars’ worth, but, in consideration of plaintiff’s agreement to ship all his gold-dust by defendant's express, defendant was charging plaintiff only four dollars per thousand. The packages were sealed, and of course defendant knew nothing of the true value thereof, except from what the plaintiff told it. The court found that if defendant had known at the time it received the shipments that the property was of greater value than $3,260, it would have charged and collected $4 for each $1,000 worth of dust. Nothing has ever been paid or offered to defendant for transporting the excess of gold-dust above the value of $3,260.