Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-07-27
MEAT CASE.
A Verdict Practically i'm Favor Of A. b.
a. A. c. Treadwell L. 70. i'm the
United States Court.
Judge Hammond Settles Some Important
Points about Cured Meat-Yer.
diets for Plaintiffs.

The Gaze of A. B. & A. C. Treadwell &
Co. u. the Angola merican Packing Com
pany, and of Fowler Bros. rs A. B. & A.
G. Treadwell q Co.,were concluded yesterday
and given to the jury in the United States
Circuit Court. In Octobsr, 1880, the Tread
we'll Brothers purchased through Mr.. Frank
Ellis, Memphis broker Of the Ang -Ameri-
can Company, of Atchison, Ks, one carload
of cured meat. The meat was shipped with
bill OF lading Endorsed to Treadwell Brothers,
but sent to the Union and Planters Bank,
with draft for the price attached, TO be deliv-
cred to the Treadwell Brothers on payment of
tie. draft, but not otherwise. On presenta-
tion of tine draft. it was paid November 3,
1880. When the meat reached here On No
vember 9th, it was
FOUND TO BE SPOILED.
The Treadwells sent word to the shipper
that they held the meat subject to his order
and demanded reclamation, which they re-
fused. Suit was then instituted for the
amount paid on the draft and attached the
meat as he property OF the Anglo-American
Company, and the meat was sold by order of
court.
HOW To cHEcKMATE.
In order TO get even the Messrs. Treadwell,
through another broker, ordered another car
load of meat of Fowler Bros, Of Chicago.
The meat came to hand, but billed from the
Anglo American Packing Company, of Kan
sss and draft by that company for the price.
On seeing the bill the Treadwells refused 10
pay the draft, and attached the second car
load of meat as the property of the Anglo
American Company to secure the reclamation
due them on the first carload. Fowler Bros.
then sued the Treadwells for the amount OF
the draft that was protested and in the con-
tract of sale.
NOT CURED MEAT.
The jury found the fact to be that the
first carload was not cured meat according
to the contract, and gave a verdict for the
Treadwells for the money paid on the draft,
The freight paid, the storage and other ex-
penses of handling and interest; but that the
second carload, although furnished by the
Auglo-American Company, was shipped on
account of Fowler Bros, and gave a verdict
for the price and interest.
CLEAR DIVIDE.
1t was contended by the Kansas men, and
was sustained by many witnesses, that the
meat was cured when shipped. They en-
deavored to shift the responsibility on to the
railroads that transported it, and referred
the Treadwells TO the roads for damages.
The Tresdweils showed by many witnesses
that the meat, if cured, could not possibly
spoil by transportation in fourteen days. The
jury liked the testimony of the Memphis
witnesses best. The following points were
enforced by Judge Hammond in his
CHARGE TO THE JURY:
FTa-Whether the term current meatn
was to be interpreted according to the under
standing of the trade at Memphis, or at
Atcbison, Ks. This question was ruled
by The court in favor of the plaintiffs, on the
ground that il was a contract made by the
purchaser and the sellers broker at Memphis
for meat to he used in the Memphis market,
and the law presumed that the parties were
according to the understanding
OF the trade at Memphis as to what was
meant in the memorandum contract by
Scared meat"
Second-Whether, if the meat should be
found by the jury to be "cured" according to |
spoiled by improper handling or natural |
causes while in transit, the loss was 10 fall |
on the shipper or the purchaser. On this |
point the Court ruled that however the law
may be in England, IN the several States the
Supreme Court of the United States has set /
tied that whenever a shipment is made with
draft attached to the bill of lading not 10 be
delivered till the money is paid, the owner
ship of the goods remains with the shippers
and they are at his risk until the draft is
paid, upon which event the ownership
changes and the property become thatlof the
purchaser, and after the payment they are
at his risk. The Court said this principle
in the Federal courts by the
cases of Bows Is National Bank, 81 United
States, els; the Merrimack, s Cranch, 3I7;
the Venus, s Cranch, 116; the Francis, s
Cranch, $50; Q Crsnch, 1873, and the San
Jose Indiana, Wheaton, POS.
The jury returned verdict for the plain
tiff in both cases, 1929 rs in the first, and
1882 80 in the last. The two cases were
Iried together.
No appeal can be taken from the decision,
but the court may grant new trial.