Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-12-28
SEHPE,IS 2PgEAG.
DECHsEON 0k4EaE SUPREME
COURT Ok FESNEssEE,
AtBrovnsvilie, june Terln. 1898


! iEnp6'Sl wagon ALO tottp4 on tuBiI p" y
% Memphis, ami 10 deliver the cotton 10
Meacham d Galbresth, merchants at
y Il mphis.
-, Eilstrong took the cotton to Mem
phis, aud ia fraud OF his duty 10 PJpe,
put is into the possession Of Taylor. Cole
| & Mcleod, merchants, and employed
them to sell it on his (Armstr5ug'sl &C
count, representing TO them that ne " ss
toe owner OF the cotton.
Taylor, Cole & Mcleod, su9posing the
cotton to be ArmstrOng's, and WithoUt
any notice that it was not, sold 1t and
paid the proceeds to Armstrong, VINO sb-
seconded with the money, and ,hss not
tsipce been heard from.
Pope brought this action Of tTover
against Taylor, Cole & Mcleod for the
conversion of the cotton, and upon siAe
issue of not guilty and under thS,cEr
structiass OF tbe Courts thst np0n N Z
state of facts, the defendants we're iaOA
70 the plaintiff for the value OF the cotA
ton, the jury fcund 2 veidict against the
defendants, and judgment was rendered
accordingly.
The counsel Of the defendant excepted
60 tho ruling Of the Court, and now IL
eists that the law Of the case is, or ought
TO be, that Whsre an sgent Is entrusted
by the owner, with the possession Q!
property of the kind and for tue pur-
pose as here, and puts it 10 the
hands OF factor TO sell, ara the
factor sells the same aud pays over the
proceeds to the sgent, snd without notice
Of The fraud OF the agent, or OF the tide Of
the owner, that ia such ease the factor is
not resp 1nsible to the owner Ia trOyer IoT
the conversion Of the property.
There can be no doubt, tha5 the agent
lin such case cannot make To 6n inuccant
purchaser a title to the cotton, as against
the owner; nor can he (ths agent eause
the title 10 be p1t in sGcn purchaser ~
gmDloyiDz g. factor. who follows the oEsi'
Dsss OF selling cotton, 20 make the sale.
/ The sgent cannot give &c his ageDt-t1s
factor-anythiDg more tn~clTe TO suoh
purpose than is possessed By himself
This is elementary law.
The owner OF the cotton, In such case,
may follow tbs cotton, iato whOsesoyer's
hands it nss gone, and been sold or
otherwise converted, aud recover
its value, and it is not defense asa inst
the action of the owner, that the party
sought to be charged, bought and paid
for Al 10 the Ususi course OF trade, with
out notice that ais vendor did not have
the right OF property ia the cotton, or
the power 10 sell il.
! Mere possession alone does not vest the
| ageut with pogar to give the purchaser,
however faaecent, the right Of property
against the owner. Nor Is il enough so
10 do, that the owner pct tbs agent into
! the possession. Something more mast
| be coupled with such possession, to ena'
bic the agent to effect vsitd sale to The
nurchaseT, against the will or iust-uc-
, tiopa of The owner. That something
/ nnure esis55 in the essss where the owner
! mas invested has Rgsntin possession, with
/ an apparent power 10 Esii, or VITA toe
! title 70 the property, or with the CUSTOM
] sry taGicid OF little, which purpor5 that
/ tEa title or right Of property Is 10 Ile
perty hagiBg the possession. Toe 90
/ yious ,ustics Is, ts-st i the owner MSS Pul
/ the agent iB posses iop, ate a2s ~ ec.s
! o. any kiad held co th5 agent as haNing
authority to sell, or hss givea the agent
! the saea-s af holding hiHlssli Oul - the
oTupr. tn aloh cases the pufcGa7efl VINO
| has teen thereby Gisie3; anu been Ia
duced by ssCn Of such apparent au-
/ thurity or 3nQiciG Cf tit.el % pstt win
his money for sGe property, Witbous NO.
/ tiee Of tie zeal fact that the agent mas no
! authority TO Eeil, % That the seller 10
! pass ession IS not the rsst agner, upon
main PRINCIPLES Of natural justice, Is en-
Tilted 10 hold the property sgSsnEt Tue
owner. The f.uit is OF the owner. thsthe
/ mas furnished the sgent with an apparent
! power 70 sell, or With an apparent Ute
/ which imports 8 right 70 sali. &1e oS o"
/ er is repeiIed ifoi4 FseOveTy, upon toe
priucipls Of Whist "a UsUsiiy designated an
! estoppel IN pals -[20 Weud., SaitHs "
Everett: y ID. Haff nan vs CardH ~
| Als. GS2: Is ID. 7l6; IL Wend., 50.
a familiar liiHsiration OF the apparent
poBer 70 sell, which gill enable the
! fraudulent sgeEt IA possession to aopleT
/ good title upon en- inncc6nt purchaser,
| sgairs. the instructions or will Of the
| owner, ard in fraud Of The owner, may =
| found 10 the Ususi dealings D5tTeanttffe
/ ogners Cf merchandise ard or selling
/ factors. The factor tosel! fellows the ou-
! ainess or oee2pstion Of selling tie msr-
chaudise Cf others. IN tins character NJ
holds himself out to Jae world, Mst-
I ehaudlse pu. into his hands, Is understood
/ hy the public IS so put into his hands Tor
! the purLCse 0. sale, and the public kaNe
/ the right 80 TO presume. The owner
J OF meTchanise, putting u lDt0 the
! nsuds Of such factor, holds the factor cat
1 TO the pCblic, in resFect OF suea meienan-
/ disc, es having the possession Ia the way
! Of his occupation, aud Ter the purpose OF
| este Or disposition 40 the ordiaaFy course
| Of his occupation. Whoever deals With
| such factor, in the regular course Of his
| occupation, and So good faith, roHy right
( fully presume that the factor has author
4 iiy - TO deal. And tbis, upoR the pria-
ciple that the owner mas not only given
! the possession 70 the factor, but has also
bestowed upon him an apparent author
| ity 10 sell.
A distinction, however, exists, which
| may he proper to state, ana which VIII
! illustrate this doctrine 1t was msde by
! this caurt many years ago, il the case Of
/ Hull vs. Waller, The case was, Goodman
/ & Means were merchants in Memphis
/ and followed two kinds Of business. with
/ regard to e0ttOn-One as factors To sell,
I tie other As storage factoTS-that Is, they
! received and held cation for planters on
/ storage for shipment, Es Sas customary
ST that day, 10 New Orleans ana eise'
| where. HAL, . PLANTER in Mississippi,
sent his cotton 70 Goodman u Means, for
storage only until ordered to.ship, snd not
for sale. Being 10 siress for money Good
man & Means sold the cotton TO Walker,
who bought in the usual course OF trsde,
and paid the fu,l value, and without nc
tice Of the WEGt Of authority or Good
nau IL Means to sell. Hull BROUGHT an
action OF trover against WALKER ior the
conversion Of the cotton to bis use. The
case came 70 this Court en- appeal, and 1t
/ yess here held that Walker was liable,
The cotton vas placed by Hull with
| Goodman & Means pu storage, and for
that reason their sale 10 Walker gave
him no title. Had they followed the
business only of selling factors, and the
cotton been pug In thsir hands by Hull,
not for sale, il may be prt s1ueQ that
sale made by them TO Walker, without
notice to him OF the Instructions TO them
net to sell, would have carried the title
to Walker against Hull. And this be-
cause, in such case, Hull not 0n'g put the
Gotten in the possession Of 9opdmsn 4
Means, but by so doing held them out to
the public as having authority 10 sell It.
Another class OF cases msy be men
toned, where an agent, without actual
authority 10 sell, is nevertheless abe to
make good title TO 5 pGrchssef, for
value, without notice. Cases Of this kind
are, where the agent has not only pos
! session, but is further clothed with the
apparent title, or furnished with
the ordinary iysdieia Of title,
by the ewner. Thus, when upon ship
ment Of goods the owner c0nsigns them
/ to his agent, and takes and forwards to
the agent bill OF lsding to him as con-
signee of the goods, such Dill Of isdiDg
indicates, and Is evidence OF Ownership
| Of the goods by the consignee; and, per,
sons buying from such oonslgDee IN gooo
- L.-a