New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-02-19

solve those questions into their simple ele-
ments. Bv such means re satisfactory
solution may be- reached. Payne, Hunting
ton & Co. we're simply factors, agents (spe-
cial at that, charged by Sandel with the
sale of his produce. They were bound as
such to obey his Instructions as to the desti-
nation of the proceeds of his cotton when
and after shipped and sold. Par. Con. p.
80. They were bound to follow and obey
his Instructions quoad his cotton. In the
case Of White We. Rucker, An ia. The
court held that "wbere defendant is to ship
her crops to plaintiffs, who agree with the
proceeds to pay her installments in bank
and plantation expenses. and to apply the
balance to hsr notes in their favor, they are
not bound to ascertain at their peril tha de-
tails of her accrning Indebtedness in bank
and plantation expenses, and to discharge
them, but only to hnnor her drafts in favor
of the bank and for plantation expenses te
the extent of the funds in their hands. ap-
plying the surplus to her note" Consign-
r., 44o; An 1893; An, 40; C. c., 3On4-5.
The same principle applies to bank. They
are the agents Of the depositors. and must
honor their checks when in funds, regard
less of depOsitOr's. outeide obligations.
Morse on Banks and Banking, pp. 90 and 80.
Factors can not hold funds for their COZ
signors, belonging to them. and refuse to
honor their drafts drawn against them, nor
to pay them over when called on. 1t is
very true that if they have accepted his
drafts drawn in favor Of others against
them, hs may safely pay, but in that event
their ch sracter az agent for the drawer is
merged in the capacity of debtor. They
pay the drawer pro tantO when they accept
and have thus fulfilled their duty to him by
establishing another relation to new party.
But there was no acceptance here, aud the
4 e. H.. ~s-., ~
ton to DR.. Sandel
need not amplify any further. If the
defendants were obligated to Cooper, it
was a. surety and not as principal, for they
hsd received no consideration, and really
owed him pO.hiEg. Whether they were
ever to owe him any thing depended on con-
ditiors which it is needless to mention
''Dr. William Sandel has informed us that
you have goue on bis bond for $30O0." Now.
this was .fat accompi before the defend
ants had any intimablOn Of its cOnteTpla-
| tion by the principals on the 0ond.' They,
| therefore, offered no inducements to Cooper
| to sign it. His obligation was complete,
| independently of the information conveyed
by the letter or message of DR.. Sandel. 1t
| we regard them in the light of guarantors
| land certainly the most favorable light they
| can be viewed in to the plaintiff, what are
| the conse equencesl Tie defendants received
! no consideration, and offered no induce
ments to Cooper to 60 on the boud. He
| had signed that already. The contract OF
| guaranty looks to something to be done,
and if it has already been done, as in this
case, it becomes, if it creates any obliga-
ton, one Of suretyship. Now, it is very
| evident that defendants never intended to
become the sureties of Dr. Sandel. As
merchants, they simply assented to pay his
money to Cooper in The event of his having
to pay $4,000 for Sandel, provided he iSan-
del) would place that sum in their hands
for that purpose. Whether Sandel would
place it there was matter of his indiviG-
ual volitiOn which defendants could not
control, for the crop belonged to him, not to
them in any sense. 1t resolved itself into
question of good faith on the part OF DR..
Sandel, which, as to defendants, he seems
not to have carried out, and for which dc
| not think defendants are at all liable.