The New Orleans Democrat., 1876-05-27
MssPHtt~g VpinIon Of justices Howell
ANA Wyly.

At the request Of parties interested II
the legal points involved In this case
we print the dissenting opinions Of Jus
toes Howell and Wyly:
No. 4ssl Cnafrrais g. Aeer VS.. Price, Hire 4
Tupper. Morton. Bliss a 90, interyenors an
appella ts,
Justice Howell. dissenting,
Morton, bliss 4 Go. were in my opinion, e'he
partners in tho adventure, or Price, Hine
Turner were their agents 10 making the put
chase, and In either contingency Morton, Bis
4 Go are liable tor the price Of the molasans.
There IL no evidence. as | understand IT, o
more than one sao-that made hy plaintiffs (
only the muiasses uaeaed 10 the possession D
Morton. Bliss Co. aud IN their possession it Is
conceded the, property was seauestered
Under such circumstances. think there car
be doubt that Morton, Bliss Co, "a well ~
tho other partes, are liable to plaintiffs. who
should he paid
Therefore dissent
Justice " yly dissenting
The facts and law II this case are CORRECTLY
Judge a cue, which adopt as my dlssentins
opinion. IN this case will. besides add few
'Undoubtedi there was partnership betwee
Morton Bliss q co. and j. II. Laftte h 20. in the
molassee speculation which they began in No
m sn9 vsh embraces 2 the St 2,
Undoubtedly there was but one sale Of the 10 ~
lasscs in question. and Chaffraix q Agar were
Undoubtedly they have q privilege upon the
thing sold. without registry, provided the ven
dces have not sold and disposed Of the same. =,
Now, The question arises for whom was the
purchase msus by Price. Hire & 1upper2 II II
was made for the Partnership between Morton
bsho oH en- s nn Gaesis h.s ~ anG
certainly seaue-ter the molasses and enforce ti Q
privilege tor the price, whether they knew o,
Tunper Uu ~ wore r, buying III for said partnership
That Price. Iine 4 rupper bought this lot Of
molasees. ~ they had bought many lots before.
and an H John Il. Lsitte ( 90. and we're acting In
their behalf there can be no doubt.
They We're. but fulfilling the asreenent they
ehases. II L. proven they Price, Hinsa 4 TuRper!
tho speculation. whom the shipments were final
" sold by Morton. Bliss a Go,
Here the real purchased the partnership ,,. en-
S:tSs sotds e.. Srssss ssa and ri" rySsss os
contract rnsAe by Price. Hlne ( Tupper I, get
I the contrAt, or that pkt thereof Imposing the
duty to par tho price, II s no excuse that Price,
Hns sspaysss
trusted TO them, and did not pay to plaintiffs the
prce Of ths y,Ulsssos iu question.
The partlerehip Wes contracted with the cx-
press understanding that Price. Hine h Tupper
wore to DO the buying for 1t IN their own name.
Tor fear 4 4 were known In the market that the
u. l.. La.ltttfs Co. wore making these purchases
of mola-ses to be shipped to New York on spec
ulatiop, the prico Of molasses would enhance to
their disadvantage.
Now the instrument that the partnership chose
to carry. out its designs has failed TO keep is
plighted faith--it the Arm Of Price Hine 4 Tup-
per. has Violated the agreement; 1t has wrong
fully appropriated the money which IL received
and whict n should have paid over to plaintiffs
a. the prics Of tho m,sasses.
1t seems 10 mo If the partnership has been dis
appointed hy the wrongful act Of its employees,
who has diverted ita money and not paid the
price. tho lnss should fall on itself and not on
Chaffrais 4 Agar. Certainly the vendee the
partnership, cannot koep the molasses which II
bought through Prise Hine a Tuppcr and not
nay the pries. II eannct hold up ono part Of he
contract Aad say It is good and gives title. and
repudiaie tho other Ia regard To the payment Of
the price. Had tho partnership engaged in this
molassea speculation shown that Price, lime
Iupper were not engaged in their employment
in buying moa<scs, ana that il bought the mo-
lusscs IN question from Price. Hine f. Tupper.
list rs it would from amy other seller, Of course
the demand Ci plaintiffs in this case could not
10 maintained. But ths record shows beyond
doubt that the partnership was organized for
the purpose Of buying molasses on specu alton.
through Priv, Hine 4 Iupper and IN the name
Of Price, Hine Tupper. An important part OF
the contraa was that oil purchases made by
the partnership should be in the name OF
Price Hine & Tuppor for fear. If it we're known
who the real purchnssr WAS. the price OF mo-
lasses would 80 up. Viewing the contract out Of
which the partnership in question arose as an
entirety, and considering the whole scope Of the
intentions and purposes of the parties there
can be no doubt the molasses were purchased
by the Partnership ihrough Price Hine h Tup-
per as parties interpoeed, and that there was In
no sense a sale or conveyance from Price Hine
4 Tupper 20 said partnership.
| therefore dissent In this case