California Supreme Court, 1856

Goodwin v. Scannell

California Supreme Court · Decided July 1, 1856 · Heydenfeldt

6 Cal. 541

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Copeland v. Fairview Land & Water Co. & Lake Hemet Water Co. (Cal. 1913)
Fletcher v. Great Western Elevator Co. (S.D. 1900)
Fifth National Bank v. Providence Warehouse Co. (R.I. 1888)
Douglas County Road Co. v. Abraham (Or. 1874)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.