The plaintiff shipped certain goods from Worcester by rail and took a bill of lading naming the consignee as "Order of" the plaintiff and the destination as Charlestown, Mass., care of the defendant and containing the further direction "Notify A." The railroad company left the goods in the defendant's sheds upon his wharf, and delivered to the defendant a notice of the arrival of the goods, attached to which was a copy of the freight bill stating the consignee to be "Order of" the plaintiff and also containing the words "Notify A." The defendant, by a correspondence of which the plaintiff had no knowledge, had been led to believe that the goods were part of a consignment to A. to be shipped to England by one of the defendant's steamships, and in good faith delivered the plaintiff's goods to A. The plaintiff in the meantime drew upon A. for the price of the goods annexing to the draft the bill of lading received from the railroad company. The draft was not accepted nor paid by A. and was returned with the bill of lading to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, after demanding the goods from the defendant, brought an action of tort for their conversion. Held, that the defendant was notified by the copy of the freight bill that the consignment was to the order of the consignor, to his care, that the words "Notify A." did not authorize the defendant to treat A. as the consignee, and that the defendant's delivery of the goods to A. constituted a conversion, the fact that the defendant had acted in good faith being immaterial.
LATHROP, J.
While the defendants when they received the goods had no knowledge of the fact that a bill of lading had been issued to the plaintiff by the Fitchburg Railroad Company, they were notified by the freight bill that the plaintiff was the consignee of the goods, and that the goods were consigned to the care of their line. The words in the freight bill "Notify O'Connor Brothers," did not authorize them to treat this firm as the consignee. North v. Merchants Miners' Transportation Co. 146 Mass. 315, 319. North Pennsylvania Railroad v. Commercial Bank of Chicago, 123 U.S. 727, 736. Bank of Commerce v. Bissell, 72 N.Y. 615. Furman v. Union Pacific Railroad, 106 N.Y. 579, 587. Joslyn v. Grand Trunk Railway, 51 Vt. 92. First National Bank of Peoria v. Northern Railroad, 58 N.H. 203.
The contention of the defendants that they received the goods from the firm of O'Connor Brothers, which, it is alleged, was in actual possession of them, and that therefore the case comes within Gurley v. Armstead, 148 Mass. 267, is not in accordance with the agreed facts. These show that the Fitchburg Railroad Company left the goods in the defendants' sheds upon their wharf. The defendants then issued a permit directing the receiving clerk of their steamship to receive from O'Connor Brothers the goods in question, and delivered to O'Connor Brothers a receipt for the goods for shipment to Liverpool, and the permit was surrendered to the defendants. The case therefore stands very differently from what it would if the defendants had had nothing to do with the goods before receiving them from O'Connor Brothers. In exercising dominion over them by allowing O'Connor Brothers to take them away from the defendants' sheds, they deprived the plaintiff of its goods, and are liable to it for their value. This of itself was a conversion. Claflin v. Boston Lowell Railroad, 7 Allen, 341. Hall v. Boston Worcester Railroad, 14 Allen, 439. Newcomb v. Boston Lowell Railroad, 115 Mass. 230. Alderman v. Eastern Railroad, 115 Mass. 233. Libby v. Ingalls, 124 Mass. 503. Forbes v. Boston Lowell Railroad, 133 Mass. 154. North v. Merchants Miners' Transportation Co. 146 Mass. 315, 319.
We do not see anything in the evidence offered by the defendants to show how they came to be misled in allowing O'Connor Brothers to take the goods, by reason of the arrangement which they had with Fowkes, which can affect the right of the plaintiff to recover. The plaintiff was not a party to this arrangement, and knew nothing about it. The right of the plaintiff to its goods or to their value cannot be affected by the arrangement with Fowkes.
Judgment affirmed.