{
  "id": 8658589,
  "name": "HUNTER v. RANDOLPH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hunter v. Randolph",
  "decision_date": "1901-04-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "91",
  "last_page": "94",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 91"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "64 N. C., 743",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12117519
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0743-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N. C., 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278247
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/85/0429-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 5016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6842362666430784e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6980497704692435
    },
    "sha256": "4811b45d786bd397d49e5de3e44f9f329141971655752e4787c280bfa5cb3944",
    "simhash": "1:a76d1127e6fbbddd",
    "word_count": 875
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HUNTER v. RANDOLPH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cook, I.\nTbe defendant purchased through their salesman, certain wheels from the plaintiffs. Upon receipt of the order plaintiffs delivered the wheels to the proper common carrier, in Richmond, where plaintiffs resided and carried on their business, and toot bill of lading for same and sent to defendant an invoice of the goods. Upon arrival of the wheels in Kinston, to which place they were shipped by defendant\u2019s order, they were burned while in possession of the common carrier and before delivery to vendee. This action was brought by plaintiffs to recover against the vendee, the purchase price.\nIt is a well settled principle that when a vendor delivers the goods to the carrier, consigned to the vendee, both title and possession pass from vendor and vest in the vendee, the common carrier becoming the agent of the vendee. Ober v. Smith, 78 N. C., p. 313; Gwyn v. R. R. Co., 85 N. C., 429; Crook v. Cowan, 64 N. C., 743. And the vendor has no further interest in or control over the goods thus shipped \u2014 in the absence of an agreement of the parties varying this rule, or in case of stoppage in transitu in case where its principles apply.\nThe defendant resisted payment upon the grounds that the wheels were not his as he had received none, and further that the plaintiffs failed to send him the bill of lading, without which the carrier\u2019s agent refused to recognize his claim for the value of the goods.\nThere is no dispute as to the amount claimed. Upon the trial the plaintiffs requested the Court to give the following four instructions to the jury, viz:\n1. \u201cAs soon as an order for goods is accepted by the vendor the contract is complete without further notice to vendee, and such contract is fully performed on tbe part of the vendor by the delivery of the goods in good condition to the proper carrier.\u201d Eefused. Plaintiffs excepted.\n2. \u201cA delivery to a proper carrier is of the same legal effect as a delivery to the vendee himself.\u201d Eefused. Plaintiffs excepted.\n3. \u201cThe fact that no bill of lading was sent to the vendee does not affect the right of the vendor to recover the price of the goods.\u201d Eefused. Plaintiffs excepted.\n1.\u201cIf the jury believe the evidence they should find for the plaintiffs.\u201d Eefused. Plaintiffs excepted.\nThereupon his Honor gave the following instruction, viz:\n1. \u201cIf the plaintiffs deliver the goods to the railroad company, nothing else appearing, the defendant would be liable.\u201d\n2. \u201cThe bill of lading is not necessary to complete the contract, but it was the duty of the plaintiff, with due diligence, to inform the defendant Eandolph of the delivery to the railroad company, and to provide him with proper means to collect in case of loss.\u201d\n3. \u201cIf the plaintiffs, by want of due care and diligence, failed to provide the defendant with the bill of lading or other proper information and means for collecting out of the railroad company, the defendant would not be liable, and you will answer the issue, \u2018Nothing.\u2019 \u201d\n4. \u201cWas there an assignment of the bill of lading to the plaintiffs ? To constitute an assignment it is not necessary to be in writing, but there must be an agreement by both parties. If you find that the conversation between Murray, the traveling salesman, and the defendant, as to the bill of lading, shows an assignment of bill of lading by defendant to plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs held the bill of lading for the purpose of collecting from the railroad company, then the defendant would not be liable, and you will so find.\u201d\nTo the second, third and fourth instaiotdons plaintiffs excepted.\nTlie plaintiffs were clearly entitled to the instructions as requested, and his Honor erred in refusing to so instruct either in words or substance. And there was error in the instructions given; the plaintiffs having no interest in or control over the wheels after delivery to the carrier, their duty ceased, and it was not incumbent upon them to provide defendant with means to collect their value. In Ober v. Smith, supra, it was held that the vendor was entitled to recover the value of the goods from the vendee notwithstanding the fact that no bill of lading was sent him. The bill of lading in nowise affects the title to the property, but is an acknowledgment of the delivery for shipment \u2014 terms, conditions, etc., upon which it is to be carried. The title to it is not obtained through nor conveyed by the bill of lading, unless otherwise agreed between the parties.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cook, I."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "7. T. Ormond, for the plaintiffs.",
      "No counsel for tire defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HUNTER v. RANDOLPH.\n(Filed April 2, 1901.)\nSALES \u2014 Vendor and Vendee \u2014 Delivery to Carrier \u2014 Bill of Lading.\nDelivery of goods by a vendor to a common carrier is a delivery to tbe vendee, and tbis rule is not affected by failure of vendor to furnish vendee a bill of lading.\nActioN by Hunter & Sims against C. T. Randolph, heard by Judge 0. H. Allen and a jury, at December (Special) Term, 1900, of LeNOTR. County Superior Court. Erom a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiffs appealed.\n7. T. Ormond, for the plaintiffs.\nNo counsel for tire defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0091-01",
  "first_page_order": 127,
  "last_page_order": 130
}