New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-07-10
THE NEW-HAVEN RAILROAD CASE

7. tAe Editor u The y. T. Tritsns ,,oa of
SIp. On returning TO the Ory after en- 9ose"oo u
some da,s nv attention has been called 20 an a't.o,
in your paper OF the 81 inst. signed o'uuoL 20
Law impugniDg the opinion OF Jangs Oo" ,;lro "a
the Court OF Appeals, IN tue " 6horrow va
az by asserting that the case OF - hp1rrow 70
Na,op. cited by him for the doctroe ina oy o,r
ode transfer of bl OF laoiDg the ngst Oh
tansitu by tie consgnor of the eooos "ae ~
h sn reversed by the Court OF Exchsquer and thls l
soonmoao,ed nv the remarks that the pflncPi
finally established by the case "ss oectiy oPpo'i.
TO that which Judge Constock says was; sue I"P,,
the case in the Court Of found a. isngh
.;n Henry Blackstone, 337; the orlgnal decision
othe KINGS Bench was made Nov. 9, 1877, and "a
.. decision in the Court OF EKcaequer was mad
February II, 1890; the circumstance that tn,s as
revereed probably would not aztec: the decision OF
"the Railroad Comrany."
1t is quite proper my clients are deeply Interested
in the decision Of the Court of Appeals that this a.
tempt to tbow discredt upon its judg nen AMI upoa
the acc distinguished Judge who pronounced
The opinion should be answered. ana SHOWN 10 De de7'
tute of truth for while Is true that the case referred
10 was not by the Court of Exchequer out on
error LII Excheque Chamber yet it s equally true that
this Judgment Of reversal also reversed on appeal
70 the House of Lords in l793 and new tal ordered
2HtLry Blackstone 2ll k.nt Commen.afles, of'I,
the Kings Bench in 1894, IN dcc0rddnce wth ns
first decision Is Term Rep, $685. and then wit OF
error, which was intended TO be agsin brought, was
abandoned; that the Law was established precisely
an originally pronounced by the Court, and as stated
BY Judge ComstOck, who did not, of course thmk it
necessary TO give history of the case. This history
however, is very familiar, and may be found in
Abbot on Shipping, page Ss1; 20 we Wsnd ss9 IN
of law now. a-d4ys read and particularly in
the last edition of Smiths Leading Cases. Philadelphia
edition of 1855, pp 4O24l4, where all the details are
given and where all the facts, and not part Of them,
are stated. The head-note to that case, which is
usually first read and could not therefore have escaped
observation is in these words: "Held in Cam. Schaac,
"bat where the consgnee of goods be comes insovent
the consgnor may stop them an hans1u, before the
"cOnignee gains Possession In such cases, also, the
"consgDor may stop the goods IN transitu though
the consignee assigns the bill ofading TO third per
"sOn for a valuable considerations; tae right of the
"cODsigpor not being divested by the assignment.
"BUT THIS JUDGMENT WAS REVERSED, AND THE LAT
aTER POINT Is NOW SETTLED OTHERWISE"
II difficult to resist the conclusion that Student
of Law" who knows 80 much of the cited knew Il
great deal more about Which he did not think proper
Il which he did not thing proper to mention and II he
did commend to his attention the maxim, that the
of the truth i. equivalent TO the sugg tion
Of fa, ehood if be did not, be will be more cautious
WIN CURTIS MOVES,
Counsel Of the N. Y. a n. II. Railroad Co.
Ner YoTl, July g. 1856.