
    NORTH CAROLINA COTTON COMPANY v. R. N. WILSON and the TOWN OF GASTONIA.
    (Filed 8 May, 1912.)
    Cities and Towns — Cotton Weighers — Delivery of Cotton — Bailment —Pleadings—Conversion—Demurrer. '
    The delivery of bales of cotton to a cotton weigher appointed under a town ordinance only to weigh the bales is no evidence of bailment either by the town or the weigher appointed by it; and the complaint in an action against them for the value of cotton left thereafter by the owners on the platform, and which was lost without averment of conversion, is demurrable.
    Appeal from Biggs, J., at May Term, 1911, of Gaston.
    
      A. G. Mangvrn for plaintiff.
    
    
      Geo. W. Wilson (met Jones & Timberlake for defendant.
    
   Clark, C. J.

The plaintiff carried two bales of cotton to tbe defendant Wilson, wbo was cotton weigher of tbe town of Gas-tonia duly appointed. Tbe town ordinances required all cotton to be weighed. A short while after Wilson had weighed the cotton, he notified the plaintiff that the two bales were missing: The complaint does not allege that either of the defendants converted said cotton, but avers that they negligently handled and dealt with the cotton so- that it was lost.

The town ordinances are set out in the complaint, and it appears therefrom that the cotton was not required to be delivered to the custody of the cotton weigher nor to the town, but merely that the owner thereof shall carry cotton to the weigher to be duly weighed. There was no bailment of the cotton and none was necessary. Neither the weigher nor the town assumed custody of-the cotton or in any wise became bailee thereof. The plaintiff might well have stood by while his cotton was being weighed and immediately have taken it away. Neither the weigher nor the town held itself out as bailee nor agreed to furnish warehouse facilities. Their entire duty was done when the cotton was weighed. It was the plaintiff’s fault, and at his own risk, that he left the cotton on the 'platform instead of taking it away.

It is true, it is averred in tbe complaint tbat it was tbe custom of tbe weigher to tag tbe cotton. But there was no requirement in tbe ordinances to tbat effect, and Wilson testifies tbat be did in fact tag tbe cotton and at once rolled it back into line with tbe other cotton. However tbat may be, there is nothing -in tbe ordinances or in tbe nature of tbe transaction which made tbe defendants bailees, either gratuitous or otherwise, of tbe cotton. Tbe sole duty of Wilson was to weigh it. Tbe plaintiff left tbe cotton on the platform for bis own convenience, and as there was neither charge nor proof tbat tbe defendants, or either of them, converted tbe cotton, there was no cause of action stated, and a nonsuit should have been directed. It is found 'in tbe issues submitted tbat the cotton was received solely for the purpose of being weighed; tbat it was weighed and tagged and placed back in tbe plaintiff’s row of cotton, and tbat neither of tbe defendants has converted tbe cotton.

If there was any conflict in tbe instructions to tbe jury, it is immaterial to consider it, inasmuch as upon tbe complaint and evidence a nonsuit should have been directed.

No error.  