Where a warehouseman gave a receipt for wheat which he did not
receive, and afterwards the quantity which he actually had was
divided amongst the respective depositors, an action of replevin,
brought by the assignee of the fictitious receipt could not be
maintained when, under it, one of these portions was seized.
Evidence offered to show that the wheat in question was assigned
to the defendant was objected to by the plaintiff in the replevin,
but such objection was properly overruled. The plaintiff had shown
no title in himself.
So also, evidence was admissible to show that the receiver of
the fictitious certificate had never deposited any wheat in the
warehouse.
The defendants in this case were the assignees of the original
warehouseman, and were not responsible, unless it could be shown
that wheat was deposited which had come into their possession.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Page 55 U. S. 526
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
It appears in this case that C. H. Hutchinson was a warehouseman
at the City of Ranasho, formerly Southport, in Wisconsin, and in
that character had received on deposit large quantities of wheat
from different persons which, by common consent, was mingled in
general mass.
On 22 February, 1850, Hale, Many, and Ayer, the defendants,
succeeded Hutchinson in the business and possession of this
warehouse, and at the time the possession was transferred, the
portions of wheat to which the several depositors were respectively
entitled were separated and put into different bins, and the old
receipts given by Hutchinson surrendered.
In this division, 7,000 bushels which had been deposited at
different times by Adams & Son were placed in a separate bin
for them, and they as well as Hutchinson and Hale, Many, and Ayer
were present when the division was made.
Previous to this, however, and while Hutchinson was still
carrying on business at the warehouse, he gave the following
receipt to Hubbard, Faulkner & Co.
"Received into store, Southport, January 19, 1850, for account
of Messrs. Hubbard, Faulkner & Co., four thousand bushels of
spring wheat, deliverable on board vessel free of charge on return
of this receipt, and not insured against fire."
"4000 bushels of wheat. C. L. HUTCHINSON"
Hubbard, Faulkner & Co. never deposited any wheat at the
warehouse, but paid Hutchinson $2,640 as the price of the quantity
mentioned in the receipt, and afterwards sold it to John Jackson,
the plaintiff in error, for $1,050, and endorsed and delivered to
him the receipt.
The plaintiff, claiming to be entitled to this quantity of wheat
under this assignment, sued out a writ of replevin against the
defendants, and the marshal, under the direction of the agents of
the plaintiff, replevied and delivered to him 4,000 bushels of
wheat, part of the 7,000 bushels, placed in a bin for Adams &
Son as hereinbefore mentioned.
The defendants appeared and pleaded sundry pleas, and among
others, property in Adams & Son. And at the trial, the
Page 55 U. S. 527
jury found for the defendants, and that the wheat taken was the
property of Adams & Son, and its value $2,640, and assessed
damages for the detention at the sum of four hundred dollars.
Upon a motion made by the plaintiff for a new trial, the court,
it seems, was of opinion that a new trial should be granted unless
the defendant remitted all the damages assessed as aforesaid beyond
the interest on the value of the wheat from the day it was taken
under the replevin to the day of trial. And under this opinion of
the court, the defendants remitted all of the damages except one
hundred and one dollars, and the judgment was thereupon accordingly
entered.
Upon this judgment the present writ of error is brought.
The facts above stated are set out in an exception taken by the
plaintiff. The statement shows that Hubbard, Faulkner & Co., in
whose favor the warehouse receipt was given by Hutchinson, never
deposited any wheat in this warehouse, but paid for this receipt in
money. And the plaintiff offers no evidence but the receipt itself
to show that Hutchinson had any wheat of his own in this warehouse
at the time it was given, or at any other time, and in the division
which took place when the possession was transferred to the
defendants, none was set apart as belonging to Hutchinson.
Upon such a state of facts it is difficult to see how any
question of law could have arisen open to dispute. The plaintiff
indeed objected to the evidence offered to prove that the wheat
replevied was, in the division of the general mass, set apart in a
bin as the property of Adams & Co. But if there was anything in
the objection, and clearly there was not, it would not avail the
plaintiff unless he could show that it belonged to him. For he
could not maintain the replevin unless he proved that the wheat was
his property. And if he had no wheat there, it was perfectly
immaterial whether it was lawfully divided or remained in general
mass. And if the want of a legal division among the owners
prevented it from being specifically the property of Adams &
Co., it would equally prevent it from being the separate property
of the plaintiff, even if he was entitled to the quantity he
claimed in the general mass.
So too he excepts to evidence offered to prove that Hubbard
Faulkner & Co. had never deposited any wheat in the warehouse.
The evidence was undoubtedly admissible. For whether they had done
so or not, was the fact in dispute. Besides, the plaintiff himself
had already proved the fact by his own witness, Faulkner, who
stated that Hubbard, Faulkner & Co. paid money to Hutchinson
for the wheat. They did not, therefore, deposit it themselves. And
as regards the damages remitted,
Page 55 U. S. 528
certainly the plaintiff is not injured by having the judgment
rendered against him for a smaller sum instead of a larger. If
either party had a right to complain of the opinion of the court
under which the remittitur was entered, it was the defendants, and
not the plaintiff. For if a party uses the process of the law
willfully and oppressively, his conduct may be considered by the
jury in estimating the damages sustained by the injured party. And
proof of the conduct of the agents of the plaintiff in this
respect, and also of the damage sustained by the defendants by the
loss of a favorable market, were properly submitted to the
consideration of the jury.
The receipt of Hutchinson, upon which the plaintiff relied, did
not prove or tend to prove that the wheat taken on the replevin was
the wheat therein mentioned -- or that any wheat belonging to
Hutchinson, or to Hubbard, Faulkner & Co., ever came to the
hands of the defendants. It showed that Hutchinson held so much
wheat for Hubbard, Faulkner & Co. But the defendants are not
answerable for his contracts or his warehouse receipts unless it is
shown that the property came into their possession. And there is
not the slightest evidence to show that any wheat, belonging either
to Hutchinson or to Hubbard, Faulkner & Co., was ever in the
warehouse after it was transferred to the defendants.
The judgment of the district court is
Affirmed, with costs.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the District Court of the United States for the District of
Wisconsin, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it
is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of
the said district court in this cause be and the same is hereby
affirmed with costs and interest until the same is paid at the same
rate per annum that similar judgments bear in the courts of the
State of Wisconsin.