Dufour v. Mepham
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Benjamin & Co. deposited goods with defendants, and took a warehouse receipt; they afterwards transferred the goods to the plaintiff; the receipt was returned and a new one given by the defendants to the plaintiff, who held the goods as collateral security for a debt of five hundred dollars. Defendants removing from their store, left these goods with some of their own, and Benjamin & Co. afterwards obtained them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. Benjamin & Co. deposited goods with defendants, and took a warehouse receipt; they afterwards transferred the goods to the plaintiff; the receipt was returned and a new one given by the defendants to the plaintiff, who held the goods as collateral security for a debt of five hundred dollars. Defendants removing from their store, left these goods with some of their own, and Benjamin & Co. afterwards obtained them. The plaintiff, after demand, sued for the goods. The defendants answered that they had used diligence; that Benjamin & Co. obtained the…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
Goods were deposited by Benjamin & Co. with Mepham to keep for them. Subsequently, Benjamin & Co. transferred the goods to Dufour, and surrendered to Mepham their warehouse receipt, who then issued another receipt to Dufour for the same goods. Mepham removed from the warehouse in which these goods were stored to another, but left these goods (and some of their own) in the old warehouse, and the person who succeeded them in the possession of the warehouse delivered the goods to Benjamin & Co. Dufour, having demanded the goods, sued Mepham for their non-delivery, who set up the facts as above…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Wear v. GleasonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889