The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-09-01
lIefIsleHa N lhe lii4h feHH NJ
FfFufs and ifDfait
anti rtHH $500

n y W. fkHF FIT ! q il1mh'm
Chief leiIe llHdf iti.and NJ,
nptum at ihe aH
tIdt vas 4 htl blsl ~ de Htg#l
hHi h the Httdisl tmHl ~ ftntt
W Iafhpn, 90 thf specific pfffHi
aHef If i fmimd mt.Ia lg d. sil
mllep ir ibe mlo Hui delivery q
niaf baltH II rptioH
'lhe contract Il M wdtine nnl Id
n b tllmine aunls
"tamden, Miss, OL iGf, 1868
Reed, of A. n. Mckay, nine hum
dfed dollars, being ny Ia hil ~
nine bales N euilnn weighing hve
hundred pounds per bale, | i.50U Ne.
10 all which I have this day soltI
said Mckay ettwenly cents pef pound
Said cotton agree to deliver al
Canton, IN good order when required
to de ~, hnt II i understood that I
am n u % be held responsible lor IN
HNulHAllu HrriHNHlH,
Cotton located hneen miles north
Of Canton. j X. ilAani.rS.'
II appearing, by The plcndiues mud
proof, that tlia contract wns executed
NJ camdcn, q village In the northern
part Of Madison county, aud thai at
the time Of sale Che cotton WINS gin.
ned and balcd, and WIS located on n
plantation called the Lloyd place,
Which iact WIS known 10 the appel
liant, and that The appellee did not
reside on TINT place, but resided at
the time two and a-half miles from
the Lloyd place, which was then oc-
oupied by another person; that the
cotton was In the gin-housc on the
Lloyd place, two or three hundred
yards from the dwelling house and
about the time Of the surrender of
the Confederate forces, that II was
stolen by some lawlcss persons, then
common in the region Of country,
and was lost. II further appears
that the appellant had several agents
in the ncighborhood for the purchase
Of cotton that one of these, Max
well, called on the appellee for the
delivery of the cotton after the SUR
render and he replied that he had
secured four bales, by hauling il to
his house from the Lloyd place, and
that he was willing to deliver this,
provided the contract would be de-
livcrcd up-that Maxwell supposed
from the conversation, that these four
bales were part Of the cotton sold to
the appellant. But il appears that
these four bales belonged to the ap-
pellee's sister, who resided at the
Lloyd place, and was removed thence
by theappcllcc having sent to remove
the cotton belonging to appellant;
that he intended to return said four
bales to the place, but was prevented
from doing SO by his wagon and
teams being taken from him by the
United States forces shortly after the
removal; that he then determined TO
use this cotton by way of compromis-
ing with the appellant, and in order
to prevent law suit, and to account
to his sister for the cotton; this was
done not because he felt under nm
obligation 10 account to the appellant
for the cotton but 10 avoid litigation.
II appears that there was other
cotton belonging 10 persons who had
purchased It, TO considerable amount,
in the Clubhouse at the Lloyd place,
for safe keeping, and that the planta-
ton was a retired place, aud that this
other cotton was also stolen about the
same time that the cotton Of the APP
pellant was stolen.
In order 10 determine the rights Of
the parties under the facts Of the case,
let US consider, first, the import of
the contract sought TO be enforced.
II is plainly an absolute sale of the
nine bales Of cotton TO the appellant,
all that was necessary to render this
transaction n complete sale was done
the payment Of the purchase money
and the placing Of the cotton under
the power Of the purchaser, and ont
Of the actual possession Of the vendor.
II was ginncd and baled and leii at
a place Of deposit by the consent Of
the purchaser, and nothing was want
ing to render the title of the pur-
chaser perfect.
But the vendor agreed TO deliver
the cotton at Canton, in good order,
when required to do SO, and what was
the extent Of this obligation, under
the circumstances? IL is evident
that the intention was, that he should
transport the cotton to Canton when
required by the purchaser; for il was
not in his actual possession, but in
place Of deposit where the purchaser
wished IL to be; and there is no ex-
preston used, holding the idea that
the vendor was 10 be charged with
the duty Of keeping the cotton safely.
II was already delivered TO the pur-
chaser, and all that he APPEARS 10
have desired further was that Il should
be hauled to the place Of shipment
when he required Il. This stipula-
tion, interpreted by the accompanying
circumstances cannot be held 10 be a
contract for safe keeping, for such
contract will never be- inferred but
must always be founded on positive
words, or on very clear manifesto
ton Of such nm intent. There being
no contract for safe keeping, and there
appears TO be no compensation paid
for his keeping il, the position OF the
vendor, therefore, il at most, that Of
naked dcpositary; and that would
be the case even If the cotton be re-
carried a. lcit In bis possession or