Barker v. Dinsmore

The opinion of the court was delivered, by Williams, J. — The verdict of the jury establishes the fact that the plaintiff below did not sell the wool to the defendants’ vendor, as an individual, on his own responsibility, but as a member or agent of the defendants’ firm, and upon their credit. Nor was the wool delivered to him by the plaintiff. It was delivered to the railroad company, to be carried to Pittsburg, and there delivered to [434] defendants, to whom it was consigned by the plaintiff. Under the contract of shipment the company had no right to deliver the wool to any person except the consignees; and their delivery of it to the defendants’ vendor vested in him no property or right of possession as against the plaintiff. The principle which underlies this case, and by which the rights of the parties are to be determined, is this: The sale of goods by one who has tortiously obtained their possession without the owner’s consent, vests in the purchaser no title to them as against the owner. As a general rule no man can be divested of his property without his own consent and voluntary act. It is true that there are exceptions to the rule, as clearly defined and as well settled as the rule itself, but this case' does not come within any of them. Here the defendants’ vendor, as we have seen, acquired no right or title to the wool under his contract with the plaintiff, and he did not obtain from him its actual possession. The railroad company had no authority, as the plaintiff’s agent, to deliver the wool to him, and their delivery gave him no right or title to it whatever. Nor had he any apparent or implied authority from the plaintiff to sell or dispose of it. It is clear, then, that he could convey no title by its sale; and if so, the defendants could acquire no title by its purchase, though they purchased it for a fair and valuable consideration, in the usual course of trade, without notice of the plaintiff’s ownership, or of any suspicious circumstances calculated to awaken inquiry or put them on their guard. The case is a hard one in any aspect of it. One of two innocent parties must suffer by the fraud and knavery of a swindler, who had no authority to act for either. But the law is well settled that the owner cannot be divested of his property without his own consent, unless he has placed it in the possession or custody of another and given him an apparent or implied right to dispose of it. The case was tried on this principle, and as there is no error apparent in the record, the judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.