New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-04-29
THE COURTS.
COMMERCIAL PAPER.

COMMEEOlAL IAlIh.
DECISION BY TIE COURT OF APPEALS OF AN IAPOR-
TANT QUESTION TO CoNsIGNEEs AND BANKERS.
In the suit of Magoun against Sinclaire, the
Court of Appeals reversing the decision or tie General
Term of the Court Of Common Pleas has decided an i'm
porant question cons cners aud bankers purchasing
drafts drawn against cons nuents. sinclarc Marvin,
the defendants consigned several careocs 81 corn 10 an
English house, and drew drafts their cOnsignecs
against the consisnmcnts. These drafts were sold 10
Kidder Peabody Co. OF this city, the plaintiffs WIN
The drafts the defendants handed security the
bills OF ladng and "etters Of bypotbecation Inc SUD
stance Of these latter papers that the bills OF ladng
were pledged 20 secure Tho payment OF the drafts II the
acceptance should be refused should net be salsi-
tory plaintiffs English correspondents, or were not
made satisfactory. The cOnslgnees OF the coIh
accepted the drafts, ard sold the corn 10 arrive
They did not demand directly the bills OF ladris'
hut their brokers. Campbell & Co.. Obtained them on
what is known rs brokers' guarantee, viz, an agree
men by brokers aTpy the proceeds OF Inc corn III
payment OF the bills Of exchange On the back OF th'
guarantee thceousn Endorsed over their signatures
" Tho written engagement given at our request
CampDen Go. ulsappropr atGd the procCe's OF We
and in their failure carried down the t'lc''I rs
cOnsignces, 80 thai when the dIhit, were Pc o
payment they were protest ah1 me li. In ~ 90
SlnclaiIc Marvin, the driWrrf me r'Ir 1 M
tended, aud The Common Pleas, General fern, hel. ll
there WIS dcpariurc from the terms OF the hyio'hFc
tiup. and that the plaintiffs, III seeking iuiiDcr SdS
than Inc mere accepiuccs had. through Campbell & Coz
taken nosst ssion OF The corn themselves ~ '4eI @
La made Campbell * Co. their agents To Scii tue c"rh
and must look tu them and to the defendants Tor pay
IHcut az tie drafts.
Tie Cont o. Appeals, Judge Ear giving Tho opinion
rcvcrses this dccisiun Admitting una paintlH' tS'
mas; h. assumed 10 have considered he accordance :"
lie cous mes alone unstsf c,ory she terms OF the
agreement contemplated trat they might make th.ae
acccutnces satsidcfnry aud ON mailing them 81 sac
ory i'm he usnl ucde direct the delivery of toe bills Of
adIng to any person delivery - iheul Inc p.e'
ton then was whose agents were Campbell Col Nnt
thr plaintiffs II was for their benefit that the b
Of ladug were given III. TIcy had 10 relations wan
Canyb.i d Co., wAo had been bro era Tor del, :.
lie cous-IIccs procured tlt Eguiug OF III hr"iei :.
guarantee nud ud,rsed on 10 that 81 was oNec,it d
AT their request WLcn nfcd to request tlai pam
fs would deliver the b, OF adug. Plaintiffs CORE
sponcis were not control ine brokers' dictate Ia
whom and ON what { ru. sales 10 be- made. lls
Wac u short merely way %. mabinr the acccptancs
salts, actory. Tie iJuie 81 Campbell GO. t"'iuui
tLril guarantee u way affects the plant IT., Igtt'
Against tnc defendants. Use DEFENDANTS received tue
cora tur.u-h tiuir aus, and, ialiu- IN ti'lF d'ce
nirn. paint IL cad ticm 10 account, ana alt h
it.d 60 i.d IueIit T.. Z. Rice appeared Tor pahtlns
". Gleason ior dele uiaLts.