Knight v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

Citations

• 141 Ill. 110
• 30 N.E. 543

Syllabus

<p>1. Contract—implied or special—whether assignable. One count of a declaration alleged that on, etc., one P. delivered to the defendant, a common carrier, at, etc., certain bales of cotton, of certain weights and values, to be safely carried from the place of shipment to a place named, and that then and there, in consideration of a certain reward paid therefor by said P., the defendant agreed to and with him safely to carry the same, and that defendant then and there delivered to P. a bill of lading for such cotton, thereby acknowledging the receipt thereof, and undertaking to carry the same, as aforesaid, and that said P., for a valuable consideration to him paid, assigned and delivered said bill of lading to D., who on the same day assigned and delivered the same to the plaintiff, whereby the right and title to said cotton, and the right to the possession thereof, passed to and became vested in the plaintiff, and alleging a breach of the contract: Held, that the contract thus set up was not an implied but a special contract, and a mere chose in action, which was not assignable, so as to enable the assignee to sue in his name.</p> <p>2. While it is true that the assignment of the contract between P. and the carrier for the shipment of the cotton vested the title to the goods in the plaintiff, yet it did not transfer to him the contract of shipment, so as to entitle him to sue thereon in his own name, any more than would a bill of sale from P. to him.</p> <p>3. Pasties—bill of lading—right of assignee to sue in his own name. The assignee of a bill of lading can not sue thereon in his own name, but must sue in the name of the assignor, for his use, as such an instrument is a chose in action, and not negotiable.</p> <p>4. Statute of Limitations—applicable to implied contracts. The limitation of an action to ten years, in section 16 of the statute, applies when the action is upon a contract in writing, or upon other evidences of indebtedness in writing. It is not eno