## Facts

- Lydick-Barmann Company (Lydick) arranged for Jay Rountree, doing business as Ozark Motor Lines (Rountree), to transport an air-conditioning unit from Fort Worth, Texas, to Arkansas.
- Lydick and Rountree signed a bill of lading stating the shipment was “consigned to Lydick-Barmann Company” at a specified street address in Louisiana City, Arkansas, and included the instruction: “Notify Crone Company.”
- The bill of lading was printed on yellow paper, and Lydick endorsed it in blank.
- Lydick forwarded the endorsed bill of lading, together with a draft drawn on Crone Company for the purchase price, to a bank for collection.
- The draft was not paid, and the draft and bill of lading were returned to Lydick.
- When Rountree arrived at the destination, he found Lydick had no office or agent at the address stated on the bill of lading.
- Rountree delivered the shipment to Crone Company, which was listed only in the “Notify” line.
- Lydick did not receive the goods and claimed it lost the value of the unit (shown to be $129.50).
- Lydick sued Rountree for damages, obtained judgment in the trial court, and Rountree appealed.

## Issues

1. When a bill of lading consigns goods to a named consignee and adds “Notify [a third party],” does the carrier satisfy its delivery duty by delivering to the “notify” party because the consignee cannot be found at the listed address?
2. Does the carrier’s liability depend on whether the bill of lading is classified as a “straight” bill or a “shipper’s order” bill where delivery was made to someone other than the named consignee without obtaining the bill of lading?

## Decision

- The court held Rountree was liable for misdelivery because he delivered the shipment to Crone Company, which was not the consignee and was not shown to be entitled to possession under the bill of lading.
- The court rejected the argument that “Notify Crone Company” could be treated like an “in care of” direction authorizing delivery to Crone.
- The court stated Lydick’s recovery did not turn on a definitive classification of the bill as a shipper’s order bill versus a straight bill; under either view, delivery to Crone was unauthorized on these facts.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment awarding Lydick damages for the value of the goods.
- The appellate disposition was affirmed (with the writ of error later dismissed), leaving the judgment for Lydick in place.

## Legal Principles

- A carrier must deliver freight only to the consignee named in the bill of lading or to a person legally entitled to possession; delivery to an unauthorized recipient is a misdelivery.
- The instruction “Notify [third party]” in a bill of lading imposes a duty to give notice of arrival to that third party, not a right in that party to receive delivery.
- “Notify” is not the same as “in care of.” A direction to deliver “in care of” someone may permit delivery to that custodian, but “deliver to [consignee], notify [other]” does not authorize turning the goods over to the notify party.
- Even if a bill has features commonly associated with shipper’s order practice (such as yellow paper and endorsement), those features do not excuse delivery to a party other than the named consignee; if the bill is treated as a shipper’s order bill, delivery without taking up the endorsed bill likewise creates liability.
- When the named consignee cannot be found at the address listed, the carrier may not treat the “notify” party as a substitute consignee without proof of authority to accept the shipment.

## Conclusion

Rountree was liable for misdelivery because the bill of lading consigned the shipment to Lydick-Barmann Company and merely instructed the carrier to notify Crone Company; that “notify” language did not authorize delivery to Crone, and the carrier’s duty remained to deliver only to the consignee or another party entitled to possession under the bill.


Rountree v. Lydick-Barmann Co., 150 S.W.2d 173 (1941)