The New York herald., 1874-11-10
IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL SUIT.

Herman Gelpcke & Co. were brokers tn this city
and Mr.. Edward Quintel merchant and broker In
Berlin. the latter having correspondents In
New Orleans Messrs. Rodewald i Co. In Decem.
Der, 1863, Mr. Quintell wrote to Gelpcke CO. ask
ing them to open q credit In iavor OF Rodewald &
Co. for drafts against constgnments to the amount
OF $4,000. On receiving the letter Gelpcke Co.
wrote TO the New Orleans firm informing them Of
the credit given them the request OF the Bremen
banker. Shortly after this the New York firm re-
ceived second letter from Mr.. Quinteil recalling
the letter Of credit and stating In the same that
''Rodewald Co. would hardly need credit any
longer.n The day alter Messrs. Gelpcke
20. received from Rodewald Co.
drafts for some $4,000, which were accepted
and the former drew upon Mr.. Quinten for
the amounr, who protested the draft, claiming
that his second letter was an absolute recall OF
credit. SUIT was brought to recover on the draft.
At the first trial there was dismissal OF the COM
plant. An appeal was taken from this Judgment,
and the result OF q second trial was verdict for
the plaintins. This, TOO. was reversed. on the
ground or error In the admission OF evi-
dence, and q new trial ordered. The third
trial has just been finished before Judge
Van Worst holding Circuit Of the supreme
Appearing for the pisintiiis and ex.Judae Enest
and Eenry Nicoll Tor the defendant. Judge Van
Worst gave his decision In the case yesterday,
which in IT'S explanations Of the law governing let
ters Of credit, and particularly the latitude to DO
given to what are known - blank credits, Will be
found OF special interest TO the mercantile com.
munlty.
The letter from tho defendant to the plaintiffs
sssvs sss BY ns@ ss 7R vim ak * q S"ns
GS 70 the Q, s Il WAS d, o5 aS
anls address It was not required however that bills
1 :lSss :
ksd.xs1 C. e shs s,sSs II .Ssis ADDED
q @ @ sss addss:so aslsnaass -
been @ .aS..ss drafts drawn = Rssss.a ds 20
II; M sss.sat
hssascidsS that ne oI ths
s:s 'ss aYss ~
sssss.$
s ss
establish airmatyey that the drafts we're drawn ior
s
on. n Who aS of eeese Ss e s "a g %
upon the obligation the plaintin accept drafts Of
Co. OF the 18th Of january established that any
ofthe drafts were drawn Ito be used were, in tact
sssa S ss e f to or
ss % s so q by
through broxe: to parties in New Orleans No
ns rs%Snns dsats were a4sSsrsa ~
s: S s O ys s Fl s
nsd NO. been essptd and were for
against the plaintiffs Tor refusal 70 accept said drafts
gotiaed BY Rodewsd, une they could establish
s sss s % n a. m and nss 9r s
Co o. January H. And In order 70 entitle the plain
sS mu the a he
arm 2. Eodswsa Co has Sssn ssaIiaea VII
chandi.e, nor tor the purpose or raising
sSass the buy Ia, so esen as Ss
M out hs S not 90
and defendants sm6racing 9i merchandise to
the same ana others on blank account aora airms
tiye ey!dence that the drafts n drawn on the
mcnts mercha ndise to defendants. that
anything in the state o. these accounts a. the time
s 1 S Ss sn an s The @
arayn ana INA. mat me letter 81 revocation onso
Of The accounts. Tor in January 1890 the deicrdants
upon the Representations OF kodewald a Co that they
dred bales OF cotton advanced to them to The value Of
the same. Bit wnen bills OF ading they were
aiready drawn against these shipments and which
refused by the defendant the ground that by
cotton The evidence does disclose any TACT which
DAWN the GRATIS IN QUESTION or Others m purehasna m
receivng them on the ground that they were used
against shpmsnu OF merchandise to defendant
On these grounds Judge Van Worst non-sulted
the Dlafntln.