The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1859-05-23

IMPORTANT DEcIsoY.--A very important
deeisiou was made ia the Court OF Appeals ON
iuesdsy last, the substance of which we sbouid
pave noticed before but for tho crowded state of
our cotnmns Wealiude to she case of the Wash !.
nyfon and Neg Orleans T.le9rdph Companv ooatnst
Jon" u Hebso,. f Son, Of iHis ct.g
III VIII De recoiecied by eur readers that IN IN
case was an appeal froa the circuit Court Of Rich
mohu' Tue action was brought 10 the Circuit
Court to recover damages for an alleged m Is,sta
ey The Telegraph Company, 10 the delivery OF a
message cent by Hobson / Son on the "a March
1904 from Richmond, tv their factors, X s Smith
60, residing In Mobile, to purchase five hundred
osiss OF cotton The message delivered was for
z,aoo bales. The parties purchased 207s bales be-
Tore the mistake was discovered. On the discoyerv
OF the mistake, the President Of the Company
visited Mobile, and offered to take the over.pur.
chased cotton of the hands of the factors and re.
lease their principals from all costs and charpes
except the commissions Of the factors for the pur
chase made. The factors refused to accent the
proposition, unless their com missions were also
paid. This the Company declined. The factors.
under ORDERS sold l,07S bales in Mobile. at a loss
OF sS''2, incluaing all costs, commissions aud
charges and having already shipped the other
ooo oaies OF over-purchased cotton, they sent il
forward to Liverpool, where il was sole at loss
TO their principals of $S5i562 To recover thi,
amount the action was brought. The jury, in their
verdict, assessed the damages at 81 AS with in.
'e,cst ms from 2osh day Of March. 1855.
r. .ne ~, case went up on various points reserved -
saua the following points we're ruled which are
o. o. Importance to the commercial community
Lhst the Telegraph Company were responsible for
tue mistake In the delivery of the mes sage hu,
the company had the right to demand and take the
over purchased cotton off the hands of the factors
put shouid have paid the commissions Refusing
70 DO 'his, the factors Ia Mobile should have .oId
the cotton a. once In the Mobile markot ss i. was
ca ship board. and looked to the Company for All
consequential damages resulting from the miss
!ske AFTER such sale; but that they had no right
70 snip Che cotton to foreign mar ket and If The
cotton was shipped, IL was ipcumbep. on them To
sen II ahoat In the Mobile market at and look
70 the Company for any aud all damage resulting
rom snch sale. Not having done so, and the loss
complained of having accrued from the sale in
Liverpool. they cannot look to the COMPANY for
tadt foss, but can only recover the damage which
would have accrued had the cotton been at once
sold, In the Mobile market, as is was at the time
OF the refusal of the Company to take the over.
porchssed cotton In other words, all aud every
loss consequent upon the shipment to- and sale in
a Foreign market. falls on Hobson Son; ali loss
"nich might have accrued on sale in the NobtLe
mdfAet is properly chsrgease to the Telegraph
company. Judgment below reversed, and case
sent oack to be tried according to these prin-
Piles. f''"
Counsel for appellan.s-Messrs George w Chr,
lis, OF Bsston, John II. Gilmer, of Richmond
coensei for sppelees-Messrs. Vim. Ii. MacfarIand
and John d.. Patton, Jr.