Summary
noting that an absolute refusal to deliver goods to a person entitled to receive them constitutes a conversion unless the refusal is qualified, and the qualification is reasonable and made in good faith
Summary of this case from MADA INTERNATIONAL AUTO AUCTION v. BRIDGESIDE INCOpinion
Argued February 9, 1871
Decided February 21, 1871
William P. Prentice, for the appellant. J.L. Overfield ( A.J. Parker with him), of counsel for respondents.
The defendants were charged for the conversion of the goods upon evidence of a demand and a refusal to deliver them. If the demand was by the person entitled to receive them, and the refusal to deliver was absolute and unqualified, the conversion was sufficiently proved, for such refusal is ordinarily conclusive evidence of a conversion; but if the refusal was qualified, the question was whether the qualification was reasonable; and if reasonable and made in good faith, it was no evidence of a conversion. ( Alexander v. Southey, 5 B. and Ald., 247; Holbrook v. Wight, 24 W.R., 169; Rogers v. Weir, 34 N.Y., 463; Mount v. Derick, 5 Hill, 455.) If, at the time of the demand, a reasonable excuse be made in good faith for the non-delivery, the goods being evidently kept with a view to deliver them to the true owner, there is no conversion.
This action is not upon the contract of the carriers, but for a tortious conversion of the property; but the rights and duties of the defendants as carriers are, nevertheless, involved.
The defendants were bailees of the property, under an obligation to deliver it to the rightful owner. They would have been liable had they delivered the goods to a wrong person. Common carriers deliver property at their peril, and must take care that it is delivered to the right person, for if the delivery be to the wrong person, either by an innocent mistake or through fraud of third persons, as upon a forged order, they will be responsible, and the wrongful delivery will be treated as a conversion. ( Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 586; Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend. R., 290; Devereux v. Barclay, 2 B. and Ald., 702; Guillaume v. Hamburgh and Am. Packet Co., 3 Hand; 42 N.Y., 212; Duff v. Budd, 3 Brod. and Bing., 177.) The duties of carriers may be varied by the differing circumstances of cases as they arise; but it is their duty in all cases to be diligent in their efforts to secure a delivery of the property to the person entitled, and they will be protected in refusing delivery until reasonable evidence is furnished them that the party claiming is the party entitled, so long as they act in good faith and solely with a view to a proper delivery. The circumstances of this case, the very defective address of the parcels, and the omission of the plaintiff to produce any evidence of title to the property or identifying him as the consignee, justified the defendants in exercising caution in the delivery, and it should have been submitted to the jury whether the refusal was qualified, as alleged by the defendants; and if so, whether the qualification was reasonable, and was the true reason for not delivering the goods. The judge also erred in his instructions to the jury as to the duty of the defendants, as common carriers, in the delivery of goods. They may not properly, or without incurring liability to the true owner, deliver goods to any person who calls for them, other than the rightful owner. The judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.
All the judges concurring, judgment reversed and new trial ordered.