New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-07-03

C.ni,.l s,oek ~ 4 81 $50 600 81 600 No change
Loan. and SsOun'' ;sSss 5eosiS Dc: 1885
Due from other s.S,1.o sssss Pee s5ta
pepss.: is1Sas5 i sasS n lne 1881 aS
Eachsnges received at the Boston Clearing House
for the month encng June 80, sll4,si5l2A SO; Bal
ances received and paid, ss,sl6,2ls &c.
The Vlcksburg Wig gives the annexed report OF &
case Of great importance the commercial community
m general: oo
money in accordance with the PROVISIONS OF her c1ait
er and 70 that end executed number of her oon1s "
the extent we be ieve Of $780, 90 10 bonds under her
corporate s.al Of 81 900 each payable 10 oearer,
which sent in charge Of an agent 10 the NoiIeth
cities for sale The agent made sale 10 an esaohsu
ment loca,ed in Marylsnd, known as the Mlliogton
Bank and took, We believe, notes OF 'aa ;. TX.
change or payment for the bonds OF me cIy' TUE
Bank it is alleged and there appears 10 De no reason
to DOUBT it, fraudulent concern, ana coon p'oved
BANKRUPT and her notes the possession VI the cry
wor HERS; but 10 the meantime !; had passed on,
whether fairly or haudueSsy a ny VI .aeae ". ,ta
possesion of Craig and another into that Of h. H. e.
6ott Co.. aud they sued the city in the Circuit Court
of this county on their res Jectivv bonds.
1.-The city, of course, defended these SUITE, and
among Other pleas filed setting up the of Let it held
in the notes Of the MingtVn Bank, to which The bonds
Of the city had be- originally issued, but did not Stese
IN the Flea that the holders of the bonds sued on had
any notice when they acquired the bonds of the frau
du.ent conduct Of the bank of the possession Of
ths1e Oye BY the city. Our felO tO~nsman, Judge
Bsy3ett who wa then on the bench, upon demurrer
to this plea decided that it presented good bar ID
the action and gave judgment for the city IN both
cases. Craig sued out a writ OF error 20 the High
Court; it being agreed in the case OF II. Elliott
Co.. as it stood upon precisely the qae-tions that
il should ABIDE the decision in thai IT Craig. lne
question came for decision in the High Court where
II was argued by Messrs Burwen OF this city and
Nessrs Wharton Il Potter of Jackson, for the city, and
by r. A. Marshal Esq ana w. &. a. A. X. Smedes
OF this city, for the holders of the BOND. The High
Court reversed the decision Of Judge Barnett IN an
elaborate opinion in which the wool Court concurred
delivered by Judge Handy, in which they established
the following propositions, some of which are o. great
importance to the profession and almost of rst impress
sion, viz:
~ from hand to hand like bank note, promssory
note pay able TO bearer and that the holder of such
boz claims title thereto simply from the fact of
his being the holder bearer, by virtue of the con-
tract of the maker to pay the bearer and tina, such
holder may maintain action on such bond 10 his
own name without tracing his title thereto through
the party to whom 1t was originally issued by the
maker
80 That in an action ON such bond the plaintiff
need aege nothing bat the act of the execution the
bond by the maker and that he il The bearer thereof
The fact Of bis being the holder establishes prima
facte right in him TO and if the maker wishes
10 up in defense Of the suit on the bond any Ant
of failure of consideration, pay nent, or
other defense to the bond between himself and the
party TO whom il originally issued, he mast alege
in bls plea Dgs and prove the nal that the paint
f the hO er of the bond had notice OF such defense
when be acquired the bond.
"Thes, we believe to be the main points decided
by the Court and the general importance of the de-
cisiOn to the profession, Legal proposition will be
appar mt when II is stated that, with perhaps single
exec ptoD il is the only in the United States 10
which the question of the negot,abtlty Of a bond
payable bearer has been presented for oecision and
IN the pied case, Shch occurred many years ago
in Alabama the decision against the night Of the
holder, claiming merely bearer, and was adverse TO
the decision of our own Court. The decision in Ala
bams, bowever. was that Of divided Court, and was
fully reviewed by our own Court and deliberately
oveIruled as al authority"
To he Editsr Of TAeN y T,ibun@
l have perused, with considerable attention, the
learned opinion delivered 10 the Court of Appeals by
Juoge CoInstook in the of the NewYOrk and
New Haven Railroad Company i am not disposed 10
tstion the sOuDdness Of that decision. There are
however some thugs stated by the learned Judge that
have little surprised In the course of his opin-
ion which, evidently, has been prepared with great
labor, the Judge made the following remarks:
''In the great Gaze OF LltchbaTow vs. Mason, u
Term Rep, 60; i'd, 367,) 1t was held that the con-
sienor Of goods had lost his right of stoppage tr1H
stu, when the consignee holding the bill Of ladng n
dorred in bank by the consgnor delivered II II third
pen on who received it in good faith, and made ad
yauces upon il. This has been the settled rue ever
since. But in such cases lie to be Observed the legal
title the goods has vested by the sae and coc-gn
ment in the consgnee subject only TO the peculiar and
anomalous right Of arresting t1eii delivery, in the
event Of insolvency therefore, oet9ge this night Is
e1tIcsed sae consgnee transfer the bill of sdiDg TO
another person, takes 1t in good faith and for
value the after acquires the title which bis vender
had at the time of the transfer and which the con-
signtr cannot afterward take frUm him, by stopping
the goods before they have reached their destination.
In this ooctrpe, which was settled after very re.
workable contest in the Courts of England is con-
tanned all the negotiable quality that belongs to bill
Of ladng and it requires bat little discrimination to
that this not negoabihty in any sense OF that
term"
Now what has especially surprised me is this: That
il shoud have escaped the observation OF the learned
Judge that this case which he quotes with such .r-
sicuar emphasis, reversed by the { ,urt of Ex
che quer FL gland, and the principle finally estab-
hsbed in the was directly opposite to that which
Judge Comstock ssys it The report Of the case
in the Court vf Excheaaer is found at length in Hen
~ Blackstone, 357. The original decision in the
Court o. Kings Bench made Now 9, 1857, and the
decision in the Court of EKchequer made Feb IL,
$780, The crcum stance that this decision, quoted
by Judge Comstock, afterward reversed, probs-
DIV would not afford the decision of the Railroad Com
pany. But the weigh. wach is justly due 20 the de-
eson Of Court of Appeals ought Dot in any degree
"a be exposed 70 favorable criticism by the remark
able overnight of the Judge IN quoting as an Authority
a decision in important case, which decision has
been reversed. A STUDEsr OF LAW.
Markets-CARIFuLLY REPORTED FOR THE TRIBUNE.
"WEDNESDAY. July 2, 1850.
AsHEs-The market better supplied With Po'sthese are
lower sees Of IS be at &c So Pearls quist VI 61a
81 IS sAeratus is sesdy 7c The stock Of Pos SIS
bbla and Pearls 81 bbla
BOOTs AND sHoEs-Tbe business, being transacted a,
IL III.