Hudmon Bros. v. DuBose

Trover by Mortgagee against Warehousemen. J-. Liability of warehouseman for conversion. — A warehouseman, receiving mortgaged cotton for storage, and afterwards delivering it to the holder of the_ warehouse receipt, without actual notice of the mortgagee’S'title, is no.t entitled to protection, as a bailee who restores the possession to the bailor bofoi’e notice, but is liable in trover as for aeon-version. . 2. Registration as constructive notice of mortgage. — The due registration^ a mortgage on a growing crop, in the county in which the lands lie, is constructive notice of its existence to a purchaser in an adioining county.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lee. Tried before the Hon. Jesse M. Carmichael. This action was brought by E. P. DuBose against the appellants, to recover damages for their alleged conversion of two bales of cotton; and was commenced on the 15th April, 1881. The defendants pleaded not guilty, aim a special plea averring that they received the cotton as warehousemen, for; storage only, and delivered it up on production of their re-; ceipt, without notice of plaintiff’s right or ’claim; and issue was joined on both of these pleas. The cotton was raised in Macon county, during the year 1880, on lands cultivated by E. D. May and B. A. Roberts; and it was carried by one of them, in company with W. R. Chapman, on the 6th November, 1880, to Opelika, in Lee county, and there stored in the warehouse of the defendants, who gave a warehouse receipt for it; and they delivered it, a few days afterwards, to some third person, whose name does not appear, on his production of the receipt. The plaintiff claimed the cotton under two^4 mortgages executed to him by said May and Roberts, which were read in evidence without objection. These mortgages were given for advances to make a crop, on certain lands in Macon county; each being dated June 1st, 1880, and conveying, with other personal property, the entire crop of cotton to be raised on said lands during that year. Each of said mortgages was (July recorded in Macon county, in July, “lSSO, and the law-day of each was October 1st, 1880. The plaintiff, learning that the cotton had been carried to Opelika, went to that city on the 16th November, and made inquiry at the different warehouses; and he was informed by the defendants, after examining their books, that the cotton had been stored with them for' a few days, and that they had delivered it to a person who produce;1 their receipt to Chapman; but they declined to state the name of that person. The defendants, it is stated, had no previous acquaintance with plaintiff, never sr,-w him before, and had no actual notice of his right to claim the cotton; and it is further stated, also, that “there was no evidence showing .the indorsement in writing of said cotton receipt.-' . On these facts, “there being no conflict in the evidence, the court charged the jury, among other things, that the according of said mortgages in Macon county was such notice as woxdd make the defendants liable, if the jury should believe from the evidence that the cotton was raised, on the lands described, during the year 1880; although they might also believe that the defendants only received the cotton as warehousemen uu storage only, and never claimed any other .coatrol over it than as warehousemen, and never knew, as fact, during-the time they held it, that plaintiff had or made .any claim to it.” The defendants excepted to this charge, and they here assign it as error, together with the refusal of several charges asked by them. cited Hoffman v. Garoir, 22 Wend. 318; Eobinson & Ledyard r. Marks, 82 Ala. 69; Nelson r. Tremo». 17 Ala. 216; 40 Barb. 406. cited Story on Bailments, ^ 39«; Add. Torts, vol. 1, 402, 397; Perndnter v. Kelly, 18 Ala. 716; Lee r. Matthe/m. 10 Ala. 687; Dodi/e v. Meyer, 61 Cal. 405; Oram r. Thtssell. 35.Maine, 88; Heflin & Phillips v. Play, 78 Ala. 184.