The Winchester appeal. [volume] (Winchester, Tenn.) 1856-1856, 1856-02-16
Interesting Cotton Case.

rendered on Monday, the 2lst ult., in
+ case Of which an abstract is ap-
pended, may be found to be of some
interest to large class of our read
crs. The case was that of B. Magof-
lin, Us. Cowan, Dykcrs and SpaId-
ings. Appeal from the Fourth Dis
trict Court; Reynolds, Judge.
Plaintiff was a cotton planter, and
the defendants his commission mer-
chants in New Orleans. The petition
alleges. in substance, that in 1850,
plaintiff consigned to defendants for
sale 1853 bales Of cotton; that the de-
PENDANT. without plaintiffs authority,
contrary to his instructions and in
omission of their duty as his agents and
factors. wrengiulIy delayed the sale
OF his crop of 1850 an understandable
length oftime, and that in consequence
Of their neglect Of duty and disregard
cl his Instructions, he sustained loss
OF 81 cents per pound on the sale of
his cotton, for which he asks judgment
&c.
The claims were resisted on tie fol-
lowing grounds.
|. That defendants never violated
or disregarded any instructions given
by plaintiff; that. on the contrary, the
time ofsale was expressly referred to
their discretion.
2. That even if they had violated
his instructions relative to the sale OF
his cotton, still that plaintiff had full.
ly ratified their conduct in reference
thereto, by consigning to them his
crops of 1851 and 1852, for sale.
3. That the suit was barred by the
1 prescription of one year.
The evidence in the case, touching
the questions OF instructions to sell. is
found in the extracts from two of the
plaintiffs letters to defendants, quo
ted below. The first letter was dated
September 10, 1850, and contains this
language:
| "Ge"tleme@:--In regard to the crop
send You this year, you can dispose
OF it when you think proper. Ihave
held up for two years, but my impress
sion is that the sooner sales are eifec-
ted The better; bat Of this you will do
as you think best, having determined
toTely ION your Judgment in the mat
ter"
The second letter was dated Dec.
10, 1850, and in these words: Il have
drawn on you in favor Of S. Magoilin,
my brother, who will pass through
your city on his way 10 Texas, for 49,
GEO, which you will pay when presen-
ted, out Of the proceeds of my cotton.
lie will inform you when he will need
the money, and you can make a sale
to meet it Dy that time. would like
that you would sell all by the time he
returns to your city, on his way home,
and send me the proceeds as hereto
FORE This letter was delivered to
defendants on the oath Dec, 1850,
when S. Magolfin was on his way to
Texas. He returned from Texas
about the 2sth Of January. ISL
Defendants then informed him that
they had not sold, but were holding on
for higher prices: They, however,
paid plaintiff draft for $4,000.
1t was held by the Court:
l. That, Notwithstanding the letter
of Sept. 10, 1850, the letter ofDec. 10.
contained instructions to sell, which
defendants had no right to disregard.
And that they ought to have sold at
Earthest, by the time $. Magohin re-
turned from Texas, ard failing so to
do they are liable for TIE damages sus-
tanned.
2. That the subsequent consign-
ment to defendants by plaintiff. Of his
crops of 1S5l-2, was not, under the
circumstances of the case, a ratifca-
ton of their conduct with reference to
the crop Of 1850.
8. That the liability of defendants
having arisen eXcontract. the prescrip.
ton of one year did not apply.
The judgment of the District Court
was in favor Of plaintiff for s3,3G2,
that being the difference between the
amount for which the cotton was ac-
tually sold, and the amount it would
have brought had it been sold accord
ing to plaintiffs instructions; the diff
ference being 81 cents per pound.
The Judgment of the District Court
was affirmed.
Tllos. Hunton, Esq. for plaintiff
r. w. Kearney, Esq, for defend
ant.-N. o. Picayune.