New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-07-17

Iron theMemphis Appeal
A. B. Treadwell vs.. Aydlett. Robinson &
go-The question Of law IN this case arise
upon the following agreed state Of facts
D0bbins, Peasants a Co. commission mer
chants at New Orleans, purchased from
Galbreath & Putnam, gr0eers at New Or
leans, q bill of groceries amounting to Sl454
The groceries were bought by Clark, repre-
genting Dobbinsy Peasants Y CO., who di
rected Galbreath q Putnam to ship them K
Avdlett, Robinson 81 Coz, at Memphis, and
TO send the Bill to Dobbins, Peasants &
Co. for payment
Accordingly, Galbreath * Putnum
shipped the groceries to Aydlett, Robinson
a Co. using the name of Dobbins, Pleas
ants a Co.. as shippers, as appears BIZ the
bill of lading This was done il pursuance
of the directions Of Clark, and In accord.
ance with d custom Of New Orleans in such
cases.
On the next day Gaibreath & Putnam
presented their bill Of the groceries to Dob
bins, Peasants & Co. for payment, bnt il
was not paid they having failed after the
sale and shipment Of the goods, but which
was not known BIZ Galbreath q Putnam
until the bill was presented.
They teleQraphed to their agent, a. b..
Treadwell, ut Memphis, who sued ont writ
Of replevin against the steamer Lizzie Gill,
on which the goods were shipped, and by
the sheriff took possession Of the goods on
their arrival, before they had reached the
possession Of Aydlett, Robinson a. Co., and
before the bill Of lading was received by
them. IL q agreed that Dobbins, Pleas
ants q Co bad money in their possession
belonging to Aydlett, Robinson 4 Co., but
how much does not appear, nor was this
fact made known to Galbreath Il Putnam,
who had no dealings with Aydlett, Robin
son g. Coz in the matter.
These facts we're submitted to the court,
jury being waived, upon which the circuit
judge held that Galbreath q Putnam had
no right OF stoppage IN tra,lsitse, and gave
Judgment III favor Aydlett, Robinson &
Co. from which Treadwell agent of Gal
Breath g. Putnam, has appealed 1t is in
sisted for Galbreath q Putnam that they
were entitled, as against Dobbins, Pleas
ants a Co, the inEOlyent purchasers Of the
groceries, TO stop them before they reached
she Cctual possession Of Aydlett, Robinson
s. Co, to whom they we're consigned by
Dobbins, Peasants a. 20. This would GER
tainly be SO, If Aydlett, Robinson 4 Co.
bad been the purchasers, and Lad been in
solvent. But, upon the agreed case, Gal
breath & Putnam had nothing to do with
Aydlett Robinson a. Co. in the transaction;
did not.look to them for Payment; but it Is
expressly agreed that the groceries were
sold to Dobbins, Peasants a. Co, and they
alone were looked to for payment.
The question must, therefore, necessarily
turn upon the fact Of delivery to Dobbins
Peasants & Co, to whom the groceries
were sold. The transit is held to continue
from the time the vendor parts with the
possession until the purchaser acquires il;
that is to say, from the time when the /
vendor has so far made delivery that his |
right Of retaining the goods and his right Of /
len are gone to the time when the goods |
have reached the actual possession of tie |
buyer. Benjamin on sales, 63l, The trdas-
Stus Of the goods and consequently, the /
right Of st0ppage are determined by the &C
tual delivery TO the vendor, or by eircum-
stances which are equivalent lo actual de- /
livery. 2 Kent, Sd, There are cases in
which a constructive delivery viii, and 9th
ers 10 which it viii not, destroy the right of
stoppage. Mr.. Kent says: "J'here havebeen /
much subtlety and refinement on the queg-
lion as to the facts and circumstances which
svOuIU amount 10 a delivery sufficient to
take away the right. The point for in-
luiry Is whether the property is to be con-
sidered still in its transit for If It has once
fairly arrived at its destination, so as to
give the yendee the actual exercise Of do
minion and ownership over If, the right is
gone Kent, 545 In the case before us,
therefore, the inquiry is, did Dobbins,
u Co. have the actual exercise
II dominion and ownership over the gro
ieries, after they were purchased! II is
obvious that they did not purchase them
or themselves, but to be sent to Aydlett,
Robinson Il Co, at Memphis. Yet Aydlett,
Robinson g. Co. are not known to Galbreath
y Putnam in the transaction. Ii the goods
lad been carried from the house of Gal.
)reath g. Putnam to that Of Dobbins,
a. Co., and there delivered,
hat would clearly have placed them under
he dominion and control of DObbips,
'leasants & Co., and would have put an
nd to the right of st0ppage IL DObbips,
Peasants g. Co. had then shipped the
GODS to Aydlett RJbinsons g. Co., at
femphis, there could be no pretense for
tanning the right of stOppage. Instead, +
Owever, Of taking this circuitous course,
)obbins, Peasants g. Co. direct Galbreath
, Putnam to ship the goods to Aydlett,
robinson & Co., at Memphis, and to ship
hem in the name of Dobbins, Peasants d.
,O., aa consignors, and accordingly rhis
Erection is followed, and the goods ship
ed with a bill of lading in the name Of
lobbius, Peasants & Co., as the con
ignors This was a clear and unmis- I
akable exercise Of dominion and owner
hip of the goods, which is wholly incon-
istent with any right Of stoppage on
lie part Of Galhreath a Putnam. When
hey took the bill of lading in the name of ,
lobhins, Peasants g. Co. and shipped the
GODS according to their instructions to
Avdlett Robinson L. Co, they expressly
ANGAAAAS0 tAAN 3AAsA AA VI A$ObbAuSs LAGhsduts
Z Co. to control them as owners, and their j
light 20 consign them to Aydlett, Robinson
I Co., and to vest the title of the goods in
i'm. by sending along the bill Of lading BY
which the property in the goods was trans
erred to the consignees. Upon these facts
nd circumstances We are of opinion that
he circuit judge held correctly that Gal
lreath q Putnam had not the right in
and we affirm the judgment.
NICHOLSON, G. j.