The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-08
Superior C0ust-Gcncrsl Term.
Before hon. Judges Dusr, Cant bell and Bos worth.
GALE AND DELlvgRY-RIGHTs OF BONA nyDr


Hdson cs Ndson-Ihis action to recover tho
value VI ned snd Afty bushels of wheat The
facts s.tm o bs briefly these The pasnt,G buyer
81 v h nj for his own ALSO q VI
oih~rs, in he part If chs stste the deem
cant extensive de-sr in wheat and other or ns
in this city Boil isutif and defendant have exte ,sv3
deal With aatne~s who trsns.c,ei business &C
Osveeo Ia this stae 1hs plaintiff made extensive pur-
thhtcs Of wheat for ahsvs AMI he also shpned 70 him
several Thousand bushels Of wheat his (plaintiH's)
account, 30 be forwarded. The wheat have
fseI pted plaintiffs account on Lass Onssrio
received b, Mathews nj Osweyo ami forwarded By
canal b. ais II tiet could be curei the arrival of
esrgo srd 1t not then the wheat put in large bin
sardhg Tie defendant In This city had no business
transactions With the plaintiff but had very
sgpnents Of cheat other grain and making 10 him
large advances of money On sestLsneDt bet ws~n
Mathews and tho plintiT At the close OF the basness
sa,Of in 1851, appeared that Mathews had received
from the IMiPtih AMI consignee sixteen
Thousand bushels Of wheat. and b. taking all the plain
uhr receipts for wheat d. Quoting from the whole
ut the quantity which bong fur Msthe and
also the quantity ~hch had been warded by xahews
,ccount .f he tlandn, ,here would remain about
hunnred apd thirty bushels Of wheat which ought
10 have teen It'll in MA hsss possession aud belengng
70 the llsinf sh' IT time prevous - this sstalesns
kah~~s haC psigntd to the defendant about the
quantity Of wheat, and ban drawn drafts, which had
be- accepted BY Defendant and afterwards paid
the f valee Of the wheat The lust SHIPMENT to tho
osfsr d.nt had teen in connection shipments
To cher partiee, Of wheat buIk. Ia other words, q
beat had was sent down, out Of which tae defendant
received sbcut the bundrec thirty bushels
calico for ny bill of lArng sent 70 him tho
he wss advised OF tie shipment. This hast shipment
Of sbat IL app ars tncludee all the what which mad
Teosined the OF Matthew'S at Osxsgo. Under
T. at ,is IL things, WHEN the settlement with the
plain,if TOOK place Mathews gave him m order
the defendant Tor The proc<eds Of the hundred
and thirty bushs's Of wheat The plaintiff dsms ndea
The wheat Of he defendant claiming that II ives his
lie ds.Ddsrt claimed 10 retain II o oooa ode pur-
cLase. ~ referee 10 rhom the canss was referred,
found that tue plaintiff vas the owner admitted TO
cover. This ia a mot.on to set aside the report
tAn1nl Ii seems TO me that the referee erred In
d. ding that the wheat question the property Of
W pis nun and that b. ~ss entt,kd TO recover the
value VI II FRI he oeenaant Thsie Ia pretenoe of
any fraud in ibe transaction On the costrary, ali tho
parties a.teo for aught sppears in good latin Aash
ews hm.si appeas to have spippsa the wheat, sup-
yospg that II belonged 20 himself. Mathews was
linn .ns hi. grain ns
tastthr with such shipped by the plaintiff his
own account appear. TO have been scot down LAKE.
0ntsfio in vss-~is OF the plsintif, chiefly Ma
thew, has large bin, In which from hne time, ami
especially ~hsn there lack Of boats h,s own
Nhest and that ~ tie plaintiff put into to-
s.ther Under the circumstances IL Ia hardly po~siss
that bs u doing business and Of putliux II All
,ne sp.st N Dug Nss'hes "as not iuiy known 70 the
81 Ct~, ana sbtyeo In bulk. II resolved thas
irom riastin's vessel and from the large
tots between them II hardly b. supposed that tbs
IlAiniin would BE- ign,rznt Of the manner in wh oh
Mathews did the bntiness The business of Mathews
,bi ny that Of buy and seller Of graip ana 40
,ueh s-rms 10 ha,s been principally Known. Ia
thai capacity lie vs known 20 the de epaont Aod sl.o
"a ne isin'in Ieough he received ADD for~araed
ersin in the care Of the Aintif yet tnAt not
sIpar 10 haze been his principal business Thick,
unesr the circus Of this c.e, that the defendant
Vas tono Fie purchaser or os,nsgnee 70. tu vAae,
al n At he plain III al Ierst by BIZ scts confrr-
rid uIon the toD-isnes hsthe-s apparent right Of
property o@ne~. But bgain, the pl nt's wheat
., n'.rms.d With other large quantities OF whss that
uoui, he ntcesb'e 10 who had n, and esecaliy
~ In the Case OF 'h- wheat sought tn b. recovered il
was not o. ~ mx.d IN the ou Oswcgo bat II form
go Isit % csrg Which arrived In ths city 10 baik.
I.rr would be much propristy ia saying that tne
c.btIse or consguees OF the remA ming part u tho
cargo got the piais eat that ths defendant got
81. IL cl.sf siso thai tbs do spdans Il protected
unotr The pfnisAus ~ statute Of 1880, relating
factors. Mathews not sumnon casrias
bOufe s.rct He appears 70 have BEEN
dealer IL produce, incidentally fors ad-d
gan Is ihe plaintiff. Hts business generally
ar ioI sproer c.'nmon carrier,
ltuft Issb. co lar he plhiouf asrd tho
Wheat Ca him during The of 1881 tho oay
~L.st Wit, IL, Aethess, had uudertAsep 20 forward
for he lsiDtln g. Lreet ortion OF taetr basne o
iu the hises made by the plaintiff for IA.
sws, sfd sDpIi II 10 him la hi, pnintf ;,
stls NJ tL.ws' drait with the Defendant that %
,,lsr Il grail. ~ certainty W very plsu
II ubter III be eli of this oase either &
III. lose ny he default of Mathews should
be tl- Il-niiG, and not the leiendtnt
J1cle BLsr e,nco.- H. opinion the factor of
1885 this The report % the referee "a
te ~, aide. not supposed that any fscta
wouh b, eheisd By Trial. aid the plaintiff not De.
sfiIs stcb, judi ment may be entered Tor do
tenant.