Goodwin v. Scannell
GOODWIN v. SCANNELL
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Solomon Heydenfeldt (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Heydenfeldt
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The defendants, being warehousemen, and having given their storage *543receipt for a specific number of barrels, cannot set up the want of segregation to avert their liability. By their receipt, they have charged themselves and are estopped. If a warehouseman would protect himself from liability in such cases, he can do so by describing the goods as part of a larger lot and unseparated, or in bulk, with the goods of others. Such a description would give notice to any transferee of the warehouse receipt, of the condition of the goods, and enable him to use the necessary diligence in obtaining the title to a specific property.
This case is the same as that of Adams et al. v. Gorham et al., decided at the last January term. 6 Cal. R.
Judgment affirmed.
Cited by
- Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co. L.A. No. 3133. · 1913-03-20