Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1884-01-29

How Nice Job Was Put Up on a New
Orleans Cotton House.
A-esn Orleans Times Democrat ian. 2G

Ne3o orleans Times Democrat Jan. 2G.
A case of great interest to the CONNER
cial community of this city was heard
and decided yesterday by Judge Houston.
The parties were Thomas II. Allen & Co.,
plaintiffs. VS.. j. w. Burbridge e. Co. ct al.
The facts have a certain democratic smack
about them and are substantially as fol-
lows:
Thomas Ii. Allen 81 Co., in December,
1882. received a telegram from Helena,
Ark, in these words:
Have shipped you twenty one bales OF cot
ton per steamer ChOuteau. Win YOU honor
our draft Tor $7OO. w. B. REEVES Il BRO.
Thomas H. Allen & Co. responded as
follows;
VIII pay draft of $500 against twenty-one
bales. Il. III, A. n Co.
1t appears that the party who sent the
telegram to the plaintiffs was a rascally
adventurer who invented the firm of W.
b. Reeves a. Bro.
On receipt of the telegram from T. II.
A. 81 Co., he bought and shipped on board
the steamer ChOuteau a small box of cot
ton seed, consigned to 7. III. A. & Co., and
received therefor a genuine bill of lading
He took this bill of lading and skillfully
lifted it from one box of cotton seed to
twenty-One bales of cotton. Armed with
this bill of lading and the telegram from
L II. Allen i Co., he applied to John s.
HOrner Il Son, bankers at Helena, and
asked them to discount his draft on Tho
mas II. Allen Il Co. for 500. John S.
Horner & Son, the applicant being a stran-
ger TO them, inquired for his authority to
draw. He exhibited his telegram from T..
II. A. & Co.
1--WE see,'' they said, ''that you are au-
thOrzed to draw such draft against
twenty-one bales of cotton. Where is the
cOttonW
son board the Chouteau," he replied.
"Have you bill of lading?"
s'Certainly,' he replied, and produced
the raisedsbill.
Believing the bill to be genuine they
discounted the draft and, with the bill Of
lading and the telegram from Thos. Il.
Allen " Co., attached, they forwarded the
same to j. w. Burbridge & Co., of New
Orleans, their agents, for collection. j.
W. Is. Il Co. Endorsed the draft in blank
and presented it to T. II. A. & Co. for
payment.
Il. II. A. & Co., believing the transac-
ton genuine on account of the respectable
claimants through which the draft reached
them, paid it without hesitation. Two
days thereafter the Chouteau came into
port with one box of cotton seed for T, II +,
A. & Co. At the same time they received
by mail letter dated Cairo, H., which
reads as follows:
T. II. 4. Il Co.:
Gents am sorry that had to put up that
little lob on YOU about the tWentv-One bales
of cotton, but the fact is, was far from home.
deplOrably strapped and had to make a raise
on somebody. 1t is a painful reflection to me
that made 1t on you, but our actions are not
always under our control. / am now en- route
home. When | arrive there, if matters so
well with me, shall punctually refund the
500; in the meantime, ta-tai
w. B. REEVES.
Immediately on receipt of this valued
favor, 7. II. Allen II Co. notified j. W.
Burbridge Il Co. and John S. HOrner q
Son of the fraud which had been prac-
ticed on them and demanded a return Of
the 500 enormously paid by them. j. w.
Burbridge Il Co. and John S. Horner q
Son refused to return the money, and
thereupon T. II. Allen & Co. sued them
In SOiidO for the restitution of the same.
The case was argued Yesterday before
Judge Houston by Percy Roberts, ESQ, on
behalf of plaintiffs, and Messrs. Semmes
Il Payne for defendants. AT the cOnclu-
sion Of the argument, Judge Houston de-
liVered carefully expressed opinion
giving judgment in favor of plaintiffs,
He held substantially that the accept
ance of ThOs. ii. Allen Il Co., which was
brought home 20 defendants, John s. HOr-
ner Il Son, before they took the draft, was
conditional acceptance; that John S.
Homer IL Son were thereby and expressly
notified that Thos. H. Allen & Co. would
only pay the draft on condition that TWEEN
ty-one bales of cotton were shipped to
them; that John $. Horner & Son had no
right to demand payment, and by conse-
quence ThOs. H. Allen Il Co. were under
no obligation to make payment until the
condition of their acceptance HAD been
fulfilled; that the evidence showed that
the condition never had been fulfilled, and
hence, when plaintiffs paid the draft they
paid what they were not obliged to pay.
and defendants received what they had no
legal right to demand; that the payment
was, therefore, made in error and without
consideration, and, therefore, under the
well-settled rules Of the law, the plaintiffs
were entitled to recover back what they
had just paid.