New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-12-21
Law Of Owner and Factor.


A sut OF the gravest consequence TO the mercan-
for the Correction Of Errors founded m certain
mercantile transactions In this City xbich ought
TO attract general attention. and seems therefore
proper subject Of newspaper remarks. The fats
are Substantially these
WilGon & Co merchants il. Louisville KY. ship
ped in sept 40 to Chas. Colgate, 2 commission
merchant of this City. and their general agent $50
bags Of Feathers invoiced BY them at some = 500,
for sale instructing Colgate to pay rom The Pro-
ceeds certain obligation. maturing against them as
also to pay himself any balance that might be due
him on accoun. Of any like payments already made
By him for them. Colgst. placed the feathers In
the hands Of John Ste+cnE, another commission
merchant, for sale, and obtained thereon advances
in money and acceptsnces, TO the amount OF $3.50
namely, $4,000 in cash and Sl,l50 in accept
ances which acceptances and most OF the money
he testfes, were used to pay the Liabilities Of
Wilson d Co or his own liabilities on their account
In Dec 1870 Colgate failed owing Wilson Il Co
including the receipts from stevens on account Of
the feathers sJ366 Wilson It Co. t'ereppon
sued out .rit of replevln took the unsoId balance
of feathers out OF stevenss hands amounting to
$500 and thcreupon this action arose. which the
Superor and Supreme Courts have decided against
stevens. and is now 10 be finally decided By the
Court for the Correction OF Errors. The evidence
is contradictory the point Of Stevens knowledge
tina. the goods belonged to Wilson Co.-Cogate
thinking he did not, and his Clerk tina, he did inform
Stevens that he had them on consignment from
Western house. We do not see how that can be
deemed material on the assumption supported by
all the testimony that all the parties acted in good
faith throu ghout and that the material question to
he decided is simply this-Whom shall the aw hold
TO suffer by the failure Of Colgate-those who trust
ed him with their property, employed him TO sell
it and apply the proceeds in payment OF their vaTi
Gus obligations, authorized him to send the pro
per,y to Boston or Philadelphia il advisable for
better market and to draw for and receive the pro-
cecds of the sale &c sc or he who simply and in
good faith received the property for sale and made
advances upon (which advances, in good part,
if no, cntiscly were applied to the satisfaction of
the owners liabilities We cannot see how Jus
ticc and Good Faith can hesitate in deciding this
question.
The way in which difficulty usually arises in
such cases is by the conflict of Law with Equity
hut here they happen exactly to agree The law
OF this State in relation to principals and factors
passed in $50 provides g - tina,
Every factor other agent entrusted with the pos
session OF goods Tor sale. security for any ad
vances be obtained thereon, shall be deemed be the
true oDatr thereof lar to give validity to any
tract made by auch agent with any other person for the
sale disposition OF the whole any part Of such
chandzc for any money advanced or negotiable instru
ment other obligation in writing given by such per
son the faith thereof
The way Judge Bronson has contrived to reason
round this plain provision OF law, by the help of
British statute which is very different from this,
but which he thinks ought to be the same-or rather
that our law ought to mean the same as the Brit
ish-is rather more audacious than ingenious, but
we have no time TO speak of that. The effect oil
the decisions hitherto given in this case is not
merely to subvert plain and important statutory
provision and to work great individual injustice,
but to shake the whole fabric Of Trade to its tounda
tons. We await with deep socitude the ultimate