New-York daily tribune., 1846-12-31
rhe e ef Fse,e. aae g...st.

w iIson d Co. merchants IN Louisville, NY were
in the habit OF buying heavily In this city and ship
rnc heavily oi w-esrern produce 70 meet ther pay
raents AID Chas. Colga.e broker, was their gene
raj agent here the consi=nee OF tneir proper and
entrusted with Tie application OF the proceeds to
the pavmentoi taeir iabilisies Sometimes ne had
considerable funds OF theirs in his hands al other
times he would De heavily in advance TO them, be-
pr instructed 70 take up their maturing paper at
all events He was az times Al endorser on Their
paper :or considerable amounts. He received in
1910 in the course Of this dealing lot Of feathers,
worth - 20o, which he turned over to John Ste
vens, a commission merchant, for sale, receiving
advances from time to tint to the amounof $3.50
Soon after Colgate failed owing wilson & Co con
siderabIy. and they sen, on and rep!evined the
feathers in the store Of Stevens, who was very vii
ling to deliver them i; they would refund him the
MONEY he had advanced 10 their agent thereupon,
but this they would no: do and the matter vent
,lrough the LEGAL mill The questions OF fact,
though ell left in doubt by the testimony being all
settled against Stevens-to wit that lie knew the
goods belonged to Wilson Il Co. or at least not to
Colgate and that Only part OF the advances made
to Colgate were applied by him to the payment Of
Wilson L Co debts-ihe Courts have successive
IL held that stevens must lose all the money he
nd anced TO Colgate Wilson * Co.'S agent. over
the amour; that said agent applied to the payment
Of his principals debts Thus Stevens. perfectly
indifferent person IS made TO endorse and make
coed the fidelity Of Colgate to his employers Wilson
4 Co Of course tas is now the settled law OF the
case but is it Justice Hear the opinions Of the
Couectors OF Errors
Jeta H. Lor s.lator. BY the verdict of the Jury in
this cause il IL established
st That the advances made by the defendant to Col
cate the factor made with the knowledge that ne
the owner OF IN. goods.
y That the defendant has been credited not on'y
with all sucn advances appi!ed by Colgate 10
the u,e OF for the benefit OF hs ps!nifs his principals
but also the extent OF she aco,s night or interest by
way .. lien the goods
Inc broad question 10 therefore presented whether,
by our law pledge de.sitc the goods Of
his principal in which he hes right or Interest OF his
oxn. with pers who knows him to hold and possess
the goods scor and not owner for advances made
upon the same by such person to him for his individual
and benefit.
By the common law factor had no power 10 pledge
the property OF his principal tor his debts either by
an actual deposit OF such property with the pawncc
by placing in his hands the bill OF ladipg other cv
dencc Of ownership
oul in tiIs fnercanr.le community was considered
matter CT superior Justice and wisdom that factor
commercial agent, clothed by his principal with the
spparen symbols OF ownership Of the property should
dealing with him fdiyiy III the course OF business, as
purchasers mortsa.ees snG under ignorance oi his
real character.
The Senator then eiyes thc story Of the act OF the
British Parliament 1898, modifying this rule, and the
net OF 52 authorizing the tnctor pledge and deposit
the goods Of his principal Such deposit or pledge to
the extent OF the factors lien interest was admitted
where The pledge had made advances on the aiIh OF
the factors title ard not knowing that he held the goods
factor merely The net Of the Legislature OF this
state in 1880 is then referred and the third section
t,.rn 10 . n,
aud object declared by those who peiuoned for
IL, and by the Coumittee who reported the bill, 10 be
not to protect agents the fraudulent disposal OF
goods contded to them much less 10 lesah%e ihe mis-
application OF goods or merchandise
The senator ssys-The Legislature adoPne the sns
of ,.iistr, EaIr provision by etc
ZION OF the act $50 declaring to be nsdemean
o. not only factor agent, 10 apply TO his own use
goods and merchandise entrusted 10 rim, but also in
every person conDvlng with aiding and assisting him
IN such fraudulent application.
think II therefore clear that it not the intention
Of the :hrd section of the sc' 1880 to legasc what
declared by the seventh section TO be nisdemesn
or punishable by fine and niprs 0lment Entertaining
these views. oi opinion iAaI the Judgment below
should be affirmed.
Joshua A Spercer Send;or.--This case involves
very important principle Of commercial law, affecting
the rights and security Of principals and fsctois ana oil
third persona dealing with such factors
Its decision called for the expoundins and construc
on OF the for the amendment OF the law relative
to principals and factors or agents, passed Apr! To-
1880
This statute changed essentially the rules OF the com
Law relation the power OF such factors IN TIE
Sc and ndds des,ryed security 10 those who in good
faith deal with such factors be,cring them 10 be the
OF such merchandise
But it does mol change the rules of the common law
in rcspect 10 other persons who deal with them know
nr that they are no, such owners The provisions Of
the statute well calculated 10 protect the honest
dealer aud they very properly leave the dishonest ex
uoscd ,o all thu ricoT 6f ,hc common law with super
added penalties for their Offences.
% sa'eu "' tne ,o @ u' NJ .' as @ s " -
i npnu"a ,ha i s,d b. ,b i3an, p rihrb,
a,rd fSmcbt p, no affirmed
""u o"s"a ~ :. , '''' '''"
ohante4o5 patnpfm says-si @ lhlhH the Judge VINO
in .nnnosin thst rho sct of s3o ,o the amendment NJ
~ ~ .a INC Set ., iSo9 to, sne %
nav " ,d ~ VI - ~ ~
=. .sl ues to' outno.,-o tAo So "a ot w - E
ti 80 ,ht " S' W. W isG itL @ ~ go. erI W y u T. .t ~ NV
" h % '' 81 ,s
S ID, ~, ~ ~ ,iu .p,'J pm , " 49,.
o; the common law .ha, an Aecn, or actor entrusted
with the goods OF his principal to sell eopd no. pledge the