Illinois Central Railroad v. Alexander

Illinois Supreme Court

Illinois Central Railroad v. Alexander

20 Ill. 23

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1858

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 20 Ill. 23 (Illinois Central Railroad v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Illinois Central Railroad v. Alexander, 20 Ill. 23 (Ill. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

The law is now too well settled to bear discussion, that a railroad company may assume the double character of carriers and warehousemen. That their duty as carriers is ended when they have placed the goods in a safe depot of their own or any other safe warehouse. That their depot is their warehouse, and that for warehouse services they have a right to charge a reasonable compensation, the same as other warehousemen. The railroad company in this case, after their relation to the goods as common carriers had ceased, is then to be considered and treated the same as other warehousemen would be considered and treated in case the goods had been placed in another warehouse. The agent of the plaintiffs below .had abundant notice that the company claimed the right to charge for storage after the goods had remained in the depot one day, and by suffering the goods to remain in the warehouse for any length of time, when by such rule they would be subject to charge, he impliedly agreed for his principal to pay reasonable charges for the storage, and until these charges were paid, the company were not bound to let the goods go. While a lien for these charges existed, which the agent of the plaintiffs neglected or refused to pay, the company was not guilty of a conversion, by retaining the goods for such non-payment. If the charges claimed for the storage were unreasonable, Campbell should have tendered a reasonable amount for the charges, and then if the company had refused to receive it and deliver the goods, it would have been guilty of a conversion. There is so much evidence tending to show that the company had a fair and legitimate claim on these goods for storage, which would justify their retention, that we are of opinion that the case should be submitted to another jury. A new trial is therefore ordered.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Caton, C. J.

The law is now too well settled to bear discussion, that a railroad company may assume the double character of carriers and warehousemen. That their duty as carriers is ended when they have placed the goods in a safe depot of their own or any other safe warehouse. That their depot is their warehouse, and that for warehouse services they have a right to charge a reasonable compensation, the same as other warehousemen. The railroad company in this case, after their relation to the goods as common carriers had ceased, is then to be considered and treated the same as other warehousemen would be considered and treated in case the goods had been placed in another warehouse. The agent of the plaintiffs below .had abundant notice that the company claimed the right to charge for storage after the goods had remained in the depot one day, and by suffering the goods to remain in the warehouse for any length of time, when by such rule they would be subject to charge, he impliedly agreed for his principal to pay reasonable charges for the storage, and until these charges were paid, the company were not bound to let the goods go. While a lien for these charges existed, which the agent of the plaintiffs neglected or refused to pay, the company was not guilty of a conversion, by retaining the goods for such non-payment. If the charges claimed for the storage were unreasonable, Campbell should have tendered a reasonable amount for the charges, and then if the company had refused to receive it and deliver the goods, it would have been guilty of a conversion. There is so much evidence tending to show that the company had a fair and legitimate claim on these goods for storage, which would justify their retention, that we are of opinion that the case should be submitted to another jury. A new trial is therefore ordered.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 Ill. 23, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/illinois-central-railroad-v-alexander-ill-1858.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack