Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-12-20
THE MERoHANTs' NATIONAL
is Recent Success in n Boston Court
The Drafs and BEu OF LadfnK Case.

is heGGul success ia n BOSTON court
The Drafs and BEu OF LadinK Case.
The Boston papers have the following
comparatively full report of this new
celebrated case, recently decided in the
United States Circuit Court for Massa-
chusetts, and to be carried up Ut win be
seem to the United States Supreme
Court: Merchants National Bank of
Memphis as. National Bank of Com
merce-Before Shepley, Judge, and a
jury. This was an action against the
defendants for negligence on surrender
ing upon acceptance instead of holding
for payment three bills of lading, two
of them attached to two thirty-day
drafts, drawn by James H. Milford. OF
Memphis, upon Green 81 Travis, of Bos-
ton, and one to a sight draft drawn by
S. M. Anderson & Co upon the same
parties in June, 1870. The plaintiffs
offered evidence to show that the drafts
were drawn against cotton sold by the
drawers of the drafts and shipped to
Messrs. Green & Travis, that the drafts
were discounted by the plaintiff bank
and the railroad receipts attached to the
drafts, that the plaintiff bank forwarded
the drafts with bills of lading attached to
their correspondent bank in New York
the Metropolitan National Bank and
that the Metropolitan National Bank
forwarded the same to the defendant
bank for acceptance and payment; that
the defendants bank presented the
drafts to Green d Travis far acceptance,
and upon acceptance delivered them the
bills of lading, and that Messrs. Green
d Travis failed soon after June 90, 1870,
leaving the drafts unpaid. The defend
ants claimed that the bills of lading
were attached to the drafts to secure
their acceptance and not their payment,
and that i'll the absence of instructions
to hold for payment the defendants were
authorized tosurrender the bills oflading
upon acceptance. They also offered evil
dence to show that there was an agree
ment between Green & Travis and the
parties of whom they purchased the cot
ton (Mulford g. Anderson, that the
bills of lading should be surrendered
upon acceptance, and claimed that the
plaintiff bank were bound by this agree
ment. 1t appeared that there were no
instructions given to the defendants
either by the plaintiff bank or the
Metropolitan National Bank of New
York concerning the drafts in question,
but the defendants proved that instruc-
tons were given to them to
tached to a large draft in
December, 1869, and that this was the
only instruction given. The court ruled
that in the abseRce of instructions or
consent expressed or implied by the
plaintiff bank, the defendants We're not |
authorized to surrender the bills of lad
ing upon acceptance of the drafts by !
Green and Travis, but should have held |
them for payment; that the agreement |
Of the vendors of the cotton and draw |
ers of the drafts (Mulford & Anderson, |
that the bills Of lading should be deliv- |
cred up upon acceptance of the drafts, |
would not be obligatory upon the plain /
tiff bank, unless they were informed of |
it, and directed the jury to find and an
swer two questions: First, whether /
there was an agreement between Green |
d Travis and Milford d Anderson that |
the bills oflading should be surrendered |
upon their acceptance. Second, wheth-
er this agreement was known to the
plaintiff bank. The jury found, under
the instructions of the court, q general
verdict for the plaintiff for the value of
the cotton surrendered, and found also
that there was AN agreement with
Green d Travis by milford q Anderson
for the surrender of the bills of ladiRg
upon acceptance of the drafts, but that
this agreement was not known to the
plaintiff bank. The case will be taken
to the Supreme Court at Washington on
a writ of error.
COMMENTS OF THE NEW YORK JOURNAL
OF COMMERCE.
Va oIoD yvfoD 10 aorv n ,.ro.l |
Boston case referred to by our Sub
scriber" there in his letter of the elev-
enth instant. 1t makes no difference
what agreement the owner of the cot
ton in Mississippi had with the buyer in
Boston. The former brought his bill of
lading to the Memphis bank, and OBJ
for its payment. The bank drew for its
tanned an advance and pledged the cotton
advances on the buyer at Boston, pinned
the bill OF lading to the draft, and for
these documents to the Bank of
Commerce at Boston, expected the lat
ter to give up the property only on re-
payment of the money. The bank did
give up the bill of lading when the draft
was accepted, and as the latter was not
paid the bank was held responsible for
The money. The buyer had not obtained
clear title to the cotton, and it was sub
ect to the lien of the advance until de-
livery was made to him by the Bank of
Commerce. Our correspondent will see
his if he will suppose that the bill of
aiding had been retained by the bank.
The question, referred to US for settle
nent, of a case in controversy as toll |
whether a prOmissOry note made paya-
Die at a bank can be protested before
hree O'Clock, has been heretofore de-
,ided in these columns. The note may
)e presented at the bank on the day it
alls due at any time after the bank /;
)pens for public business, and if pay
nent is then refused it may be instantly
protested. l
Messrs. L. & Co., ask if draft at i
light is entitled to grace. We answer
hat in this State grace is forbidden on
III sight drafts by the statute of 1857, !
which reads-"All bills of exchange or
traits drawn payable on sight, at any
'lace within this State, shall be deemed $
ue and payable on presentation, with )
ut any days Of grace being allowed
hereOn.n
ALL the standard poets in every vari- a
ty Of binding, and the very richest
tyles, beautifully illustrated, at Cleaves
! Carnes, 2S3 Main street. Fl