The Sun.
London, England, 1857-01-17 00:00:00

KINGSFORD V. MERRY.

The following letter gives a concise summary of
the facts in the case of " Kingsford v. Merry,"
and will enable every one to appreciate the state
of the law regarding pledges of goods, which is to
be taken into consideration at the meeting of mer-
chants and bankers to be held at the London
Tavern on Monday next. As it stands at present,
according to the admission of Chief Baron Pol-
lock,
" No man can be safe, and business in a great
commercial city like London cannot be carried
ou :"

" 4, Charlotte-row, Jan. 15, 1857-
" Sir,—Having carefully examined the whole plead
ings in the case of 'Kingsford and Swinford v. Merry,
I shalt feel obliged by your publication of the following
epitome of the facts, and judgment of the Court of Error,
in order to the due comprehension of the principle in-
volved in that decision, which, if established, will strike
at the root, not only of the validity of delivery orders,
dock warrants, and bills of lading, hut of the security
of all transactions in relation either to realty or
personalty.
"The simple state of the case is this :
" Messrs. W. J. Hall and Company, public ware-
house-keepers and legal quay wharfingers, received on
the 21st of November, 1853, from Messrs. Kingsford
and Swinford, nine casks of tartaric acid, their own
manufacture, with a delivery order signed by them thus:
—' Please receive as under, and hold to our order nine
casks, &e.' Messrs. Hall so held the casks, and so
entered their tenure in their public books. Eight days
thereafter they received another delivery order from
Messrs. Kingstord, thus Please transfer to the order
of Mr. B. Anderson nine casks tartaric acid. Charges
to hun. (Signed) Kingsford, Kingsford and Swinford."
A transfer of the goods, holding them to Anderson's
order, was made in Messrs. Hall's books accordingly.
Oa the same day Anderson, then in good repute, but
otherwise unknown to Messrs. Merry and Son, drug
brokers, appli, d to them for an advance on the security
of wharf warrants for these and other casks of tartaric
acid. Merry received the warrants of Messrs. Hall, the
public wharfingers, for these goods, in obeOience to
Anderson's order, as directed by Kingsford's order,
above quoted ; bona fide advanced 2,0001. on the security
of the same, sold them to recover his advance, paid over
the surplus proceeds to the assignee on Anderson's
estate, and 13 months afterwards was required by
Kingsford and Swinford to pay the proceeds to them,
o❑ the ground that Anderson had procured from them
the delivery order by fraud.
"The decision of the Court of Error establishes the
principle that by reason of Anderson's fraud the delivery
order did not pass the goods to him ; that the delivery
order, being V'e foundation of the dock warrant, that
latter instrument received the taint of the delivery order,
and did not pass the goods to Merry; that, notwith-
standing these transfers, the casks stood still the pro-
perty of Kingsford, although their own order purported
that they transferred them to Anderson ; and that
Merry in an action of trover could not resist repetition
of their price to Kingsford. Had 50 dock warrants, to
50 pawnees or purchasers, been negotiated, Kingsford
would thus have been entitled to follow the goods through
any conversions, to choose any of the trans!erees or hold-
ers he pleased, and to establish his right to recover from
all or any of them.

" 1. I perfectly understand that property taken from
a person without his knowledge, or without or against
his consent, is recoverable, except where purchased bona
fide in market overt.' But the Court of Error has made
no distinction between that felony and this fraud, where
the real owners knowingly, and with their own con-
sent, parted with their property to Anderson, trusting
to his repre,entation, indeed, but still consenting to
the trawler.

"2. Quoad third parties in bona fide, how can the
Court of Error hold that the goods were not passed
to Anderson in the teeth of the fact of the order of
the owners declaring them to he so transferred ? The
Court of Exchequer held that the order did pass the
goods, but that they would have been recoverable if
still in Anderson's possession. The Court of Error is
forced to ignore Kingsford's order, and deny that it
passed the goods, to get at their reason for establishing
Kingsford's right of trover.
" 3. The decision permits Kingsford to deny his
own written deed and to say that, although it ordered
a transfer to Anderson, they did not mean so to
transfer.

"4. The decision practically authorises owners of
goods to proclaim to the world that they have parted
with them, and that they are at the di6posal of another,
while, when bona
,fide pawnees, on the faith of their own
order, deal with that other, they may repudiate entirely
their own written consent.

"5. Whether Anderson impetrated the order Ly
fraud or not, to third parties that order gave him the
authority, if not of owner, certainly of agent for the
owners, and made his deed in reference thereto binding
on them. If this decision hold, what authority consti-
tuting a man agent or factor for another will hencebrth
be binding on the principals, if they choose to swear,
which parties can now do, in their own favour, that the
authority was impitrated by misrepresentation ?
" 6. If this decision be the rule of law, what will be
more easy than for two rogues to act as owner of goods
and transferee, and when the latter has raised a large
loan on them to abscond, leaving the confederate to re-
claim the goods on the ground, now. as in this case,
provable by his own oath, that the transfer was obtained
by fraud ? "S. S."

E LECTION IIcTELLIGENCE,