Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-28

U
| wise, on the paper, has the apparent legsl
title, but without any actual authority
| from the owner 60 zeil, or dispose OF the
paper. The agent in such case transfers
| tne paper to e purchaser, in good faith,
lin due course of trade, and for value.
Such puTeh aser having thus the legal
title, ia allowed to hold the psper against
| the true owner, although the agent whe
| transferred the paper, did so Tltheut
| authority, and in fraud OF the owner. 1t
/ is not the possession only which enables
| the scept TO make al effective transfer
l 10 the purchaser in such case, but IL Is
/ the possession clothed with the apparent
title. Promissory notes payable TO
| bearer, bank notes, money, stand on the
same rule. The bearer has the apparent
title. Thus it is that not possession aions,
! but possession coupled with the apparent
! title, viii enable q fraudulent agent to
/ make 8 good title against the owner, 10
! q purchaser for value and in good faith.
Ths general rule ia res6sct TO personal
property is, that q person cannot trans
FER 20 another a higher tSeg or greater
interest than ne has bimseh- rBut II the
owner gives p0ss session to an6theF, and
also an apparent authority to sell, or an
| apparent right Of property Or Itle, 1t
I VIII be fraud upon purchaser trom TIE
| latter, for the owner 10 deny to the pur-
[ chayTr the right OF such other te1 make
afse sale. Negotiable paper, suchGs bills
y 1 exchange, promissoTy notes, bank
,g .hecks, may stsud upon another ground,
4 bmllar 10 that which applies TO real
/ estate. and which protects 8n innocent
purchaser; the legal title coupled with an
equal equity.
1t may, therefore, be taken TO be the
settled Law, that al sgent has not, by
virtue of possession merely, the power to
give TO a purchaser, from him the title
sgBinst the owner.
Nor is there any sound principle on
which to maintain, that the mere pos
session of an agent, without any authorl-
" to sell actual or apparent, from ths
owner, and without any apparent title
conferred on him by the owner,
will enable such agent to con-
| fer unon his agent, power 10 sell snd
defeat the title Of the owner. The owner
not having given his agent any suthoTi-
~ to sell apparent or actual, and not
having clothed him With any title spps
rent or sctual, ii IS impossible to impuie
70 the owner any fraud wherefore to re-
pei him Of ths right 10 assert his title, or
upon which to raise agsins. him, any bar
in the nature Of en- estoppei IN pGis.
The case Ssltus VS.. Everett, reported in
20 Nend Reports, page -, is sstifactory
authority fer this, That case Wa: Bridge
and Nose, at New Oleans, shipped a
quantity of lead from New Orleans to
Nsw Ycrk, by the brig Dove, OF which
Collins WEs mBsteT, consigned to Tafts,
Everett and EaFret at New York, on ac-
count of Everett. The Dove put into
Norfolk ia distress, and Collins reshipped
the lead upon the schooner the Dasty
Miller to New YORK, taking from the
masteE OF the Dnsty Miller q bill
OF ladBg 10 which Collins was
oonsignee. Upon the arrival OF the
lead in New York, Coilins ordered the
lead 20 be delivered TO Coffia & Cart
wright. who afterwards sold IL to Saltus.
Neither Como & Cartwright nor Saltus
hsd any notice Of Everett's title. isveEet
demanded the lead from Saltus, who re-
fused to deliver 1t up, and tbeTeupon Ev-
erett sued Ssltus in trOver, and had veT-
dict and Judgment. The case was thor
Oughly considered in the Supreme Court
Of NgR York, and also in the Court Of
Errors, and bhB ight 0f Everett to re.
cover from SAltus vas established. See
also, Wiliisus and Chapin VS.. Merle, II
Weud. 50.
Sales made by fraudulent vendees, Of
persona! PEopeTty, stand on ground some-
v nat other fhSD; and some what similar
10, unauthorized ssles made by agents.
When 3 sale Is procured TO be made by
the fraud Of the vendee, such sale is void
sble at the option Of the GelrsuieC ven
dor. II ESiCTs the vendor exercises hfs
option and avoids tne sale, the iTsudu-
lent vendes sell the goods 20 s. purchaser,
for vRius, snd in the 0Us course OF trsde,
and without notice Of the fraud prgcticed
on the original vendor, such purchaser
q III Obtain good title sgsin5E th2 OTigi-
usl vendor. Ths ground upon which the
iunccent purchaser Is enabled to
stand, is, that the original ven-
dor invested his fraudulent ven
dee, with TIC title or right Of property in
the goods. Thus the TreGJulont TeRdee,
having The tide and possession OF the
goods, comes within the principles be-
fore stated IN respect Of unsuthoFiEed
sales ty agents, an apparent right Of
property, coupled with possession and
given By the defrEuded vendor. 1Saltus
vs.. Everett, 20 WeDds Hoffman vs.
Csrow, . Wend. 2Ss; Anderson vs..
D.etriecht, IA Wend. 81 Morgan vs.
EvsndsIe, 5need 703 Gage, Dater q
Massey vs. AppeFsoD, 2 Head 669.
In the a1ss 10 hand Armstrong, the
agent Of Pope, put the s0ttOI IL the
hands OF Taysor, Cole 81 Mcleod to sell
for him, and they sold the cotton for him,
and paid the money over to him, and all
this iGnOseat Ol any purpose OF wrong
10 Pore, sud without nntie9 that Pope
had auy interest in the cotton, and
counsel for Taylor, Cole d Mcleod insist
that ppou such state of facts, they are
not liable 60 Pops for the conversion of
the cotton. Tho point IL clear of doabt.
The relation of Armstrong 10 Taylor,
Cole & AIcLe0d, was that Of principal
and agent, as between themselves. The
eet OF toe principal which would be
tort as sgsinst another, 10 likewise 2 fort
as against inst other, who're done by the
agent at the instance Of his principal,
'sEd Is the tort of the agent. The princi-
pal esunct confer upon the agent au-
ttority to commit tort upon the prop
erty Of another. 1t matters nothing,
however innocent ia intention the agent
NAV he who COM ulits the tort. The tort
does not consist in the intention Of the
wrong doer, but in the damage done to
the Injured party no. does the liability
Of the party committing the tori, depend
upan bis intention, but upon the unau-
thOIised injury done TO the party injured.
StO, Agency, SIS. 800, 3ll, 3l2
The case OF L9e vs Mathews, 10 Ala,
$50 was where the defendant, an agent,
y no had bought for his principal, from
one having ms authority to sell, the
slaves of the PLAINTIFF, vas held liab'e to
the latter in trover, although the agent
had no notice Of the title OF the plaintiff,
ana held possession OF the slaves for a
short time only, and had delivered the
slaves up 10 his principal, long before the
action was brought,
Pratt VS.. Kelly, IS Ala, TIG, was /,
where the defeLdant IS sgent Of another,
sold the slaves of the piaintiff. The de-
feDdsnt was held liable in trover, though
he sold as agent for another, and had no
notice OF the plaintiffs right.
Hoffman W. Carow, % Wend., 2S4t,
stands on ground somewhat different
from the cssss taken from the Alabama
hepoFts.~ Hoffman was sn auctioneeT in
New York, and in the regular course of
his business, received for sale quantity
of merchandise, which had been stolen
from tna owner. Hofmsn sold the goods,
and psid over the proceeds to the thief,
and without sDy notice that they were
stolen. Hoffman was held liable for the
value to the owner CsFow. The same
line OF argument Vas pressed upon the
Courts OF Sew York in behalf Of HoH
man as has been urged upon this Court
1 in behalf Of Taylor, Cole & McLeO6,
| The argument Is drawn from 1.-THE interest
! OF commerce. To give activity and pros
perity to trade, it Is said that men en-
gagged 10 trade should be freed from dam