The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-08-20
WAS FULLY SUSTAINED.
A Supreme Court Decision Which
Commitments Judge NaCDOleII.

compliments Judge NdCDOlell,
The Text of the Decision in the Case
of the Savannah Cotton Press Assoc
citation VS.. MaoIntyre Follows Judge
MacDonelps Charge verbatim-The
Contracts in Question Do Not Have
to Be Reduced to Writing.
Erwin, duBignon s. Chisholm have Just
received a copy of the full decision in the
| case of M Y. s. d. I. MacIntyre VS.. the
! Savannah Cotton Press Association, the
| head-notes of which were published sew
! eral weeks ago.
The case was one of unusual interest to
the commercial world at this port, as
| probably nine tenths of the cotton, rice
| and naval stores sold at Savannah were
affected by this decision.
The law provided that when such arti-
Giles were sold by planters and commits
sion merchants on cash sale, the title did
not pass to the buyer until theipurchase
money was actually paid. The effort
was made to hold that these sales were
affected by the law as to conditional sales
so as to make them invalid against third
parties unless evidenced in writing and
recorded in the court house. AS this is
rarely, if ever done, and would be great
inconvenience to merchants, the effect of it
would be to seriously cmbarrass the trade
in cotton, rice, naval stores, etc.
ADOPTED JUDGE MACDoNELL's DECISION.
The supreme court, however, held that
they did not have to be reduced to writ
| f,,rr Cd and affirmed q
| cision of Judge MacDonell, of the city
court of Savannah, but what is especially
| gratifying to the many friends of that
able and hard-worked official, they
adopted his charge as the opinion of the
| supreme court.
The decision is also interesting as re-
ferring to the rules of the Savannah Cot
ton Exchange on the subject. For the
information of our readers we give the
| decision in full:
| Savannah Cotton Press Association VS.. Mac
Intyre,
| Lumpkin Justice.
| ID The questions controlling this case
! are ruled in the head notes. The charge Of
| our gifted and clear-headed young brother, Of
the. city court OF Savannah, 80 fully and &C
| curately states the law applicable, we adopt
1t as the opinion of this court 1t Is as fol-
| lows:
JUDGE MACDONELL's CHARGE.
Under the law Of Georgia, when o planter
or commission merchant sells cotton on cash
| sale, the title to the cotton remains in the
| seller until the same shall be fully paid for,
| although IL may have been delivered into
the possession of the buyer This ownership
| may be asserted either against the purchaser
or any one obtaining the cotton from him
for value. II is not necessary that the
contract be IN writing In order to bind the
purchaser or a third party. The act Of
1881 Icode $685. AL, as to conditional sales,
which requires them to be In writing and re-
corded, has no application to this case. That
act applies to cases where the title is reserved
| by contract. by the agreement or the parties.
The object Of requiring them TO be recorded
is that third persons may be nott-
fed Of the agreement Of the parties that
title Is reserved. The title is reserved by
the law in this case. The law itself fixes the
character OF this sale, and the law is notice to
all parties buying cotton, and puts them on
guard TO see that those from whom they buy
have been fully paid for it, The law says that
the title remains in the seller until 1t is fully
paid for; that Is TO say, cotton sold by plan
tiers or commission merchants on cash sale,
shall not be considered as the property Of the
buyer, or the ownership given up until the
same shall be fully paid for, although IL may
have been delivered intothe possession of the
buyer. That being the law, such sales do not
| have to be reco rded. Flanders and Hugenin
! VS. Maynard So Georgia So.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE.
Section 1898 of she code was amended by an
act approved July 80, 1885, and by another ap-
| proved Oct 49, 1885. acts, 1884 IS, pp. 1859
These acts were passed about four years after
the act of 1881, requiring conditional sales OF
personal property to be evidenced in writing
etc which plaintiffs in error commended was
! applicable to this case. The two acts OF 1885
simply added certain naval stores to the ar
ticles concerning the sale OF which protection
was afforded to planters and commission
merchants by section 1893 of the code, and
provided that where property covered by
the terms of the act had been sold
and delivered into the possession OF
the buyer, the right of the
seller to collect the purchase money should
not be affected by its subsequent loss or de
| StructiOn The effect of this legislation was
to continue in full force the provisions of see
ton 1898, with the additions mentioned, and
no qualification was added requiring con
tracts for the sale OF the products covered by
that section to be reduced to writing or re
corded That is to say, 1t was still the legis
lative will and intent on Oct 10, 1885, the
date of the last act that when cotton corn
rice. etc, were sold for cash, the title should
remain in the seller until payment therefor
had been fully made, Notwithstanding deliv-
cry to the buyer, and although the contract
of sale was neither put in writing nor re-
corded.
UNDER THE RULES OF THE COTTON EXCHANGE.
3. Under the evidence in this case, the cot
ton was sold according to the rules Of the Sa-
vannah Cotton Exchange, from which the
following extracts are pertinent:
Cotton shall be sold for cash on delivery,
and shall be taken away within five days
from date of sale etc Cotton being a cash
article at this port, and the title remaining
in the seller under our state laws until it is
paid for, the buyer shall be considered as act
ing as a trustee in charge of the cotton for
account Of the seller from the time the
seller allows him to take charge OF it for
the purpose of removal, or otherwise, until
he shall have paid for it; and IL shall be his
duty to cover the cotton wherever it may be,
with fire insurance" etc. and 1.-The seller
shall be considered as having an equitable
lien on such insurance to reimburse him In
case of loss or damage by fire to the cotton
before it is fully paid for"
1t is plain. therefore, that both under the
law and the evidence, the verdict in favor Of
the plaintiff was manifestly right. Indeed no,
| other verdict could have been properly rem
| dered, and consequently the court below
committed no error in refusing new trial.
Judgment affirmed
Erwin. duBRnon & Chisholm for plaintiff
in error, Denmark & Adams for defendants in
| error.
PUNTA GoRDA.
Largest Phosphate SHIPMENTS Ever