Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-07-15
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Question Of Stoppage Of Goods in
Transitu-S0methiBg for Merchants
60 Know.

60 Know.
A. +. rreadweu Us AydIe;i, Robinson q Co.
The question Of law in this case arises
unon the following agreed state of facts:
DObbias, PIeasants q Co, commission
merchants at New Orleans, purchased
from Galbreath & Putman, gTOeeTs at
New Orleans, bill OF groceries amount
ing 10 fourteen hundred and fifty-fOur
dollaTs. The groceries were bought by
Clark, representing Dobbins, Peasants
& Co., who directed Galbreath & Put
nam to ship them 10 Aydlett, Robinson
q Co, at Memphis, and to send the bill
% 70 Dobbins, Peasants x Co, for pay
ment.
Accordingly, Galbreath & Putnam
shipped the groceries To Aydlett, Robin
son & Co., using the name Of DObbins,
Pieasants q Co., rs shippers, as appears
by the bin Of lading. This was done in
pursuance OF the directions Of Clark, and
in accordance with a custom at New
Orleans in such cases.
On the next day, Galbreath & Putnam /
presented their bin Of the groceries to (
DObbins, Peasants 4 Co, for payment, |
but il was not paid, they having failed 1
after the sale and shipment Of the goods. /
but which was not known by Galbreath |
4 Putnam until the bill was presented. /
They telegraphed 10 their agent, A 4
B. Treadwell, at Memphis, who sued 1
out a writ Of replevin against the 4
steamer lizzie GIL on which the goods 1
were shipped, and by the Sheriff took /
possession OF the goods on their arrival,
before they had reached the possession 4
Of Aydlett, Robinson & Co, and before
the bill of lading was received by them.
- = -G a
Co. had money in their possession be-
longing 70 Aydlett, Robinson & Co., but
how much does not appear, nor was this
fact made known to Galbreath & Put
nam, who had no dealings with Ayd-
lett, Robinson x Co. in the matter.
These facts were submitted to the
court, a jury being waived, on which the
Circuit Judge held that Galbreath &
Putnam had DO right Of stOppage iR
tr03sitst, and gave Judgment in favor OF
Aydiett, Robinson & Co, from which
TreadweIl. agent of Galbreath & Put
nam, has appealed. II Is insisted fol
Gaibreath & Putnam that they were en-
titled, as against Dobbins, Pleas
ants & Co, the iusolvent purchasers of
the groceries, 10 stop them before
they reached the actual possession of
Aydlett, Robinson & Co, to whom they
were consigned BY Dobbins, Peasants 4 ]
Co. This would certainly be so, If Ayd-
lett, Robinson & Co. had been the pur-
chasers, and had been insOlvent. But,
upon the agreed case, Galbreath & Put .
nam had nothing 70 do with Aydlett, ;
Robinson x Co. in the transaction, did
not look TO them for payment; but it is
expressly agreed that the groceries were :
sold 10 DObbins, Peasants d Co., and
they alone were looked TO for payment. ]
The question must, therefore, neces-
sarily turn upon the fact Of delivery TO I
DObbins, Peasants & Co., 10 whom the :
groceries were sold. The transit is held
70 continue from the time the vendor
parts with the possession until the pur-
chaser acquires 1t; that j. to say, from
the time when the vendor has so far
made delivery that his right of retaining
the goods, and his right Of lien, are gone, 1
TO the time when the goods have reached
the actual possession 0i the buyer. Ben
iamin on sales, GA. The tr0nsitus Of the
goods. and consequently the right Of :
stOppage, Is determined by the actual
delivery to the vendor, or BY :
circumstances which are equiva-
lent to actual delivery. , Kent, "a. ] Z
There are eases in which a constructive Z
delivery will, and others i'm which it a
viii not, destroy the right OF stOppage. y
Mr.. Kent says: There has been much :
subtlety and refinement on the question n
as to the facts and circumstances which h
would amount 20 a delivery sufficient 70 :
take away the right. The point for in 4
guIry is, whether the property is to be
considered stil in its transit: for if il q
has once fairly arrived atits destination, a
50 as TO give the vendee the actual ex- n
ercise of dominion and ownership over q
il, the right is gone. Kent SIS. In the =
case before Us, therefore, the inquiry is, I
did Dobbins, Peasants & Co. have the .
actual exercise Of dominion and owner !,
ship over the groceries, after they We're Il
purchased? IT is obvious that they did h
not purchase them for themselves, but n
10 be sent to Aydlett, Robinson & Co, a
at Memphis. Yet Aydlett, Robinson 4 =.
Co. are not known 70 Galbreath q Put Il
nam in the transaction. If the goods ;,
had been carried from the house Of Gal y
breath & Putnam 10 that of Dobbins.
Pleasants & Co., and there delivered, n
that would clearly have placed them n
under the dominion and control of :,
DObbins, Peasants x Co, and would !,
have put an end 10 the right :,
Of stoppage. If Dobbins, Peasants y
d Go. had then shipped the I
goods TO Aydlett, Robinson < Co, at
Memphis, there could be no pretense for ! q
the right of stoppage. In \
stead, however, of taking this circuit \
Gus course, DObbins, Peasants & Co di- r.
rect GalbTeath 4 Putnam 10 ship the n
goods 70 Aydlstt, Robinson 4 Co, at q,
Memphis, and TO ship them in the a,
name Of Dobbins. Pleasants & Co, as n
o0nsignors, and accordingly this direc- ii
ton is followed, and the goods shipped, / II
with a bin of lading in the name Of r.
Dobbins, Peasants & Co, as the con- II
signOrs. This was a clear aud unmis- =
taxable exercise Of dominion and own y,
ership Of the goods, which is wholly in m
consistent with any right Of stoppage on y,
the part OF Galbreath 4 Putnam re
When they took the bill of lading in nj
.he name Of DObbins, Peasants & Co. n,
and shipped the goods according to their I'M
10 Aydlett, Robinson & Co, 81
hey expressly recognized the right Of i'm
DObbins, Peasants & Co. to control
hem as owners, and their right TO con-
iign them to Aydlett, Robinson & Co,
and 70 vest the title Of the goods in him.
ly sending along the bill Of lading
ly which the property in tie goods was
transferred 20 the cOnsignees. Upon
hese facts and circumstances We are le
IF opinion that the Circuit Judge held ci
correctly that Galbreaths& Putnam had sa
lot the right in tr0aSitlt, and we affirm 10
he judgment. NICHOLSON, c. ).
Logwood & AIicou, for Treadwell; NJ.
B. Trezevant, for Aydlett, Robinson d
%. or
The state OF Tennessee. te