Alexandria gazette, commercial and political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1812-1817, 1816-07-25
Ihns expressly & considered them as tn
,ronrietors.''-.N +. Fen. Post.

Shn{ expressly IS considered tneM as inc
,rourietors."-sN +. Fen. Post.
From the Belfast Commercial ChromcieI
Nav IS.
Commercial Laso Cass.-Ihe following
is of interest to the commercial world, in-||
semuch as ii decides that Broker, who|
is permitted by his employer to act as a
principal in the sale of his goods, must bel
considered by the world as principal i
and that the purchaser of goods from SUCH
a Broker, has a right to set off debt due
TO him by the Broker fer the goods so
purchased
KINGS BENcH-LOND0N, May 81
Barring Us. Corrie. Mr.. Topping shew-
ed cause against rule obtained by the
attorney general last term, calling upsD|
the plaintiff to show cause why the YER
dict found for them before Lord Elienbo-
rough, at Guildhall, in the sittings after
Michaelmas term, should not be set aside,
and nonsuit entered 1t was an actien
for goods sold and delivered to the defen-
dants under the following circumstances:
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Barring, Brothers
& Co. were West-India merchants, and
on the 18TH of June, 1914, employed
Messrs. Coles e Co. as Brokers, TO sell
fifty hogsheads Of Surinam sugar, which
had arrived in the West-India docks on
board the hip Active. Messrs. Coles
and Co. accordingly sold the sugar on
that day to the defendants, at 85s per
cwt. but without disclosing the names OF
their principals. A contract was enter
ed into for tue sale of the sugars then ~
Ing in the West-India docks.
The defendants were DESTROYS of ha-
wing the goods delivered to them as soon
as might be, and therefore they agreed TO
pay prompt at two months. On The Sd
of July. the defendants were informed who
the principals were for on that day the
sugars were delivered TO them by virtue
of the following order. $: Deliver TO the
order Of Messrs. w. +. Corrie 4 Co. ff.,
~ hogsheads of sugar, entered. By j.
Deacon per ship active, from Surinam.
for Barring, Brothers & Co." Un-I
der this order the sugar. were delivered
TO the defendants but before the prompt
payment became due, Mesirs. Celes 81
Co. the Brokers, stopped payment; and
it became necessary for Messrs. Barring
y Co. TO direct other persons t. act for
them. They immediately sent orders tot
the defendants, net to pay Coles s. Col
for the sugars, but to pay the amount tot
them. To this order Messrs Corrie 81
CO. replied, that they had considered
Messrs. Coles & Co. as the proprietorsI
Of the sugars, aud therefore the sameI
would be settled for in account with
them or their assigneers. The question:
under the circumstances was, WHISTLER
the plaintiffs had right to recover against
the defendants tor the amoant Of the su-
CARS.
1t appeared from the evidence of Mr.
Coles that his house had had other deal
ings. as general merchants, with the house
of the defendants and that they were
largely indebted to the latter in the wayI
oi acceptance for goods sold to them
The names of his principals were not
communicates to the defendants at the
time Of the sale of these sugars. and if
misfortune had not pressed upon his
house before the day of prompt payment,
he could have received the money forI
the sugars from MesSrs. Corrie, without
their Knowledge that the plaintiffs xereI
principals. His house were still indebt.
ed to the house OF tie defendants ;for'
any thing he knew to the contrary his
house appeared as prop'ietors of the sr-
CARS. His house bad no commission of del
cse de?e
Lord Peterborough was of opinion, u
pom this evidence At the trial, that this
case came within the doctrine laid down.
in George . Claggett. 7 Term Reports,
and held thata broker who is permitted BY
his employers to appear aud to act as al
principal in the sale Of his goods, must be
considered by the world as principal, and
the purchaser of goods from such bro
ker, has right to set off debt due to him !
by the broker, for the goods SO purchas.
ed. The Jury however, after retiring
Cor considerable time found verdict
for the plaintiffs, contrary to his lordship's
direction The Learned Counsel now at
tempted TO distinguish this case from
George q Claggett, by saying, that in
that case, the broker had a commissionI
del credere, which was not the fact in
the present case; and he contended that