Reid Phosphate Co. v. Farmers Fertilizer Co.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Reid Phosphate Co. v. Farmers Fertilizer Co.

77 S.E. 863, 94 S.C. 212, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 126

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 29, 1913

Docket8497

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 77 S.E. 863 (Reid Phosphate Co. v. Farmers Fertilizer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reid Phosphate Co. v. Farmers Fertilizer Co., 77 S.E. 863, 94 S.C. 212, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 126 (S.C. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

This action was for $1,263.10, a balance alleged to be due for the sale and shipment from Charleston 'by the plaintiff, Reid Phosphate Company, to the defendant, Farmers Fertilizer Company, at Spartanburg, S. C. The defense was that the fertilizer shipped was short of the amount charged by eighty-five and three-tenths tons, of the value of $695.19. The plaintiff introduced bill of lading of Southern Railway Company for the entire two thousand tons, across which was written, “Shipper’s load and count.” There was evidence to the effect the consignor did weigh and load the acid, and that the railroad company *213 accepted its weights. In the course of the trial, the Circuit Judge intimated his opinion that the defendant consignee was bound to settle according to the amount of acid set out in the bill of lading, but allowed the defendant to- introduce some testimony tending to show that all the goods were not delivered, and that the cars were sealed when received. Adhering to his opinion, the Circuit Judge instructed the jury that as between itself and the consignor the consignee was bound by the bill o-f lading, and if it had any remedy for shortage it was against the carrier.

In Thomas v. Railway Co., 85 S. C. 539, 64 S. E. 220, it was held that as against an innocent purchaser for value the railroad company was bound by the recitals in the bill of lading as to the quantity of goods shipped. The rights of an innocent holder are not involved in this case. On the contrary, the question is whether a consignee, who- is also the p-urachaser from the consignor, is bound by the recitals of the bill of lading.

The bills of lading were prima facie evidence- o-f the shipment of the goods purchased, but the consignee did not agree to- be conclusively bound by it, and it was competent for the defendant to- show that by mistake the quantity o-f goods bought had not been shipped, and that a mistake had been made in the bills o-f lading. Benjamin v. Cinclair, 1 Bail. 174; 6 Cyc. 420-422; 4 Elliott on Railroads, sec. 1419.

Reversed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

This action was for $1,263.10, a balance alleged to be due for the sale and shipment from Charleston 'by the plaintiff, Reid Phosphate Company, to the defendant, Farmers Fertilizer Company, at Spartanburg, S. C. The defense was that the fertilizer shipped was short of the amount charged by eighty-five and three-tenths tons, of the value of $695.19. The plaintiff introduced bill of lading of Southern Railway Company for the entire two thousand tons, across which was written, “Shipper’s load and count.” There was evidence to the effect the consignor did weigh and load the acid, and that the railroad company *213 accepted its weights. In the course of the trial, the Circuit Judge intimated his opinion that the defendant consignee was bound to settle according to the amount of acid set out in the bill of lading, but allowed the defendant to- introduce some testimony tending to show that all the goods were not delivered, and that the cars were sealed when received. Adhering to his opinion, the Circuit Judge instructed the jury that as between itself and the consignor the consignee was bound by the bill o-f lading, and if it had any remedy for shortage it was against the carrier.

In Thomas v. Railway Co., 85 S. C. 539, 64 S. E. 220, it was held that as against an innocent purchaser for value the railroad company was bound by the recitals in the bill of lading as to the quantity of goods shipped. The rights of an innocent holder are not involved in this case. On the contrary, the question is whether a consignee, who- is also the p-urachaser from the consignor, is bound by the recitals of the bill of lading.

The bills of lading were prima facie evidence- o-f the shipment of the goods purchased, but the consignee did not agree to- be conclusively bound by it, and it was competent for the defendant to- show that by mistake the quantity o-f goods bought had not been shipped, and that a mistake had been made in the bills o-f lading. Benjamin v. Cinclair, 1 Bail. 174; 6 Cyc. 420-422; 4 Elliott on Railroads, sec. 1419.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 S.E. 863, 94 S.C. 212, 1913 S.C. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reid-phosphate-co-v-farmers-fertilizer-co-sc-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack