New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-14
NEW ORLEANS, SATURDAY, MAY IA, 1870

principal debtor. Within i've Gays alter the
sale, and while the vessel having the goods
was still iu port, both parties were Informed
that Gautherin & Co., were in insolvent cir
cumsta- ces had purchased and shipped the
goods without having the means to pay Tor
them, though bought for cash.
Gautherln & Co. called their creditors to
an informal meeting. which both kehlor
and Belknap attended, but this meeting re-
solved in nothing. In the meantime Kehior
had suggested to BelkEap that he should
seize the merchandise, but Belknap con-
tended that this was Kehlor's business, and
neither did any thing to that end.
Under this course of business and circum-
stances. defendant contends that by the
customs of trade he is eXonerated from liza
billty, and he has attempted to prove that
such custom exists.
If in this affair Belknap was broker in the
strict sense OF the term, | could not for d
moment hesitate TO eXonerate him; but,
technically, broker is the agent OF both
the knowledge of both, and his functions
are legally limited to putting them in rela-
tion to each other, aud to aiding them I'M
partially in coming to an agreement,
whereas evidently Belknap represented only
one CT the parties-the purchaser. His very
title, "buylng broker" shows this, and the
circumstance that the vendor had bis own
representative, SCl.luS DiOhci, NOH-
firm it. | think it il dabitable they weie
not properly brokers, but simply two agents,
each representing only one side, and really
acting for the sole interest of their en-
ployers respectively.
Some Of the witnesses say that when the
buying broker, after the delivery, dlscl oses
the purchasers name. the seller must at
the very instant elect whether he is willing
10 deal with the person named, and declare
l. = hot ell. OF
the time of taking the indorsed account
from the broker operates an immediate ac-
ceptance Of that principal, and an uncondl-
tional discharge of the broker. This is too
strict view. The seller should have rea
sonable time and opportunity to exercise
whatever option he is entitled TO; but when
he has had the time necessary TO ascertain
the mercantile standing OF the principal, Is
dissatisfied and designs to hold the broker
responsible, he should so declare, unequivo-
caiiv and promptly.
This the plaintiffs did not do. When they
had presented the account 10 Gautherin d
Co., and had been put of, they only casual
IL stated the naked fact to Be!knap, and
gave no animation of any intention to look
10 him. They then had had sufficient time
to make due inquiry and decide.
1t is shown that defendant during the
whole series of his transactions with plain
tiifs never deviated from the customary
course Of business of buying brokers. He
always held himself out as acting for others,
was so acting in fact; never made purchases
for himself; was in every Instance able and
willing to scio>e the name Of principal in
good repute on demand or at the customary
time, or if the principal did not wish to be
known, always made him provide before
hand the necessary cash TO. pay piantln
bill when presented.
T. % hn yriy, ,riy y1o1s
insolvency was discovered, and even after
pIaintlffs he'd tacitly accepted Gau herin d
Co. as their obiigors and debtors. the goods
were still within reach of process, and the
vendors rights and extraordinary privi.
leges, even against third persons, had not
been lost, for The five days had not expired.
The plaintiffs chose to let them escap-.
They must suffer the consequences. 1t was
then too late to retract the taCit election
they bad already made, and even then the
broker was able to refer them to an effective
remedy against the principal.
The main fact and turning point In the
case is this: That by unmistakab!e custom
of trade, the proper time for purchasing
agent to disclose his principal is at presenta-
tion Of the bill, the day after delivery. The
disclosure then made of principal in good
mercantile standing is timely and sufficient,
accCrdicg to usage, and, therefore, accord
irg to law. The Well known custom was
sufficient notice that the principal would
then be made known. A delivery of goods
made without requiring q previous dis
closure was tacit assent to this customary
rule. II was just as if the plaintiff had ex-
pressly contracted to accept any principal
IN good mercantile standing. as if be had
previously known him, provided the broker
disclosed the name at the time of APPROX
ing the account sales. c. c. 1897, 1858, ct
SEQ .Jn6pment for defendant.
Woodbridge for plaintiff, and Koontz &
Elliott for the defendant.