WELLS, Fsneoi & co. v. OREGON BY. & NAV. 00. 51 ‘
Wnms, Frisco & Co. ·v. Oameon RY. & Nav. Co.
(Circuit Oowrt, M D. Ualifmmia. August 8, 1887.} W
1. S.u.m——Jns DISPONENDI—LIABILITY on Csnnrnn ron Mrsnnnwnnv.
` Where a shipper attaches his bill of lading to a draft upon the consignee,
A he therebiy expresses his intention to deliver the goods upon payment of such
draft, an to retain control of them until such payment, and the carrier who,.
under such circumstances, delivers them while in transit to the shipper, is
liable to the consignee who has duly taken up the draft.
2. Damacns—liJxrnnsn Incnnnnn nw Punsnrr or Pnormnrr-··EvmmN0a.
·'* Under Civil Code Gal. § 3336, providing that, in an action brought by a con-
signee against a carrier for wrongfully delivering up goods in transit to a
party other than the consignee, the measure of damages shall be the highest
mar et value of the properiéy at any time between the conversion and the
verdict, without interest, an a fair compensation for the time and money
properly expended in pursuit of the property, it is incumbent on the Plainti
to show_the circumstances under which the expenditure claimed by him to
have·be‘en` incurredwas made; so that the court can decide whether it was
proper., V · t F V . _ , . V
Page .& Belts, for plaintiffs. `
Estee dc Wilson and Messwbk do Maxwell, for defendant.
r Boss, J. From August, l885, to some time in the early part of 1886 ,
thehrm of Mills & Co. and one William Jones were dealing largely
r in wheat; Mills & Co. being located in San Francisco, California, and —
Jones at Walla Walla, Washington Territory. During the same period.
the plaintiffs herein were carrying on business as bankers in San Fran-
s cisco, and defendant was engaged in the transportation of passengers and
freight between various points in Oregon, 'Washington Territory, and
California. At different times between the dates mentioned Jones sold
` wheatto Mills & Co. In doing so, the method adopted—except in one
instance, which occurred early in their dealings, and which it is not im-
portant to notice further-——was this: The respective parties would, by
telegram or letter, agree upon a sale, whereupon Jones would ship the ‘
wheat on the defendants cars, taking therefor a carrier’s receipt, reciting
defendants agreement to deliver the merchandise to consignee or owner;
Mills &`Co. being therein designated as consignees. Jones would then
draw a draft on Mills & Oo. in the approximate amount of the purchase
price,--notexceeding, however, according to the agreement of the par-
ties, 95 per cent. thereof, in order to guard against shortage or damaged
wheat; attach to it the carrier’s receipt; discount the same with Baker &
Boyer, bankers of Walla Walla, who would send the draft, with annexed
receipt, to the First National Bank of San Francisco for acceptance and col-
lection. That bank, on receipt of the papers, would notify Mills & Co. of
their arrival; and Mills & Co. would accept the draft, and, on maturity,
pay it with their check on Wells, Fargo & Co. , duly certified; the check be-
ing certified and paid by Wells, Fargo & Co. pursuant to an agreement be-
· tween them and Mills & C0. that they would advance the money upon the
·carrier’s receipt, which, in each -instance, was indorsed and delivered by