The morning call., 1894-11-18
THE VENDER SOLD.
How Gordan Bros. Col
Their Goods
Important Decision by Judge Slack
in Suit Against the Rail-
road as Carriers.

Superior Judge Slack rendered de-
cision Yesterday in case that was being
watched with great interest by many
prominent merchants of this city, and his
decision is likely To prove of interest to
merchants residing on the other side of the
water and doing business with houses here
The title of the case was Winter Bvard
Sheppard VS.. the Southern Pacific Com
pany and the circumstances leading to the
action were as follows: In the summer OF
| 1890 large quantity of wooden e, DDS was
ordered by Gordan Bros, the tailors, of
this city. from the plant tiff, Sheppard, who
is a manufacturer residing in Frome
England. The goods were contracted for
on the usual business terms, and in the
fall of the year they were shipped to New
York. Z. Hawley of New York was
named as the consignee in order 10 faciiita te
the transhipment of the goods to San
Francisco.
In pursuance of the employment of
Hawley as consignee the goods on their
arrival in New York were entered al the
custOm-hous6 for transportation in bond.
No apprasement was put on the goods.
| The goods were afterward conveyed by the
Southern Pacific Company as common
carriers undsr the supervision of the GUS
they were transferred from the steamship
New FORK 10 cars for transportation 10
San Francisco. They arrived safely in
San Francisco and were Immediately sent
by the United States Government officials
to the unclaimed warehouse and thence to
the Appraisers store.
On the 17,h of November the customs
officers allowed Gordan Bros. to enter the
goods in a warehouse, from which they
were withdrawn in the following August
BY Attorney Herbert Choynski. Soon
| after this a suit was filed against the de-
| PENDANT company for conversion of the
| goods.
! 1t was charged in the complaint that
notice of stoppage in transitu had been
| served on the defendant company by the
/ plaintiff Sheppard on October "a, $780, the
| day following the departure of the goods
| from New orK in bond. Other notices
/ we're served from time to time on the
| Southern Pacific Company by Vincent
Neale, attorney for the plaintiff Sheppard,
! TO hold the goods in safekeeping for The
unpaid vender, Sheppard. In response to
these notices the defendant company did
their best 10 have the goods held on their
| Journey, but their efforts were unsuccess-
| full. The yender. Sheppard, then brought
suit to hold the company liable for the
| goods.
The case was on trial for two davs be-
| fore Judge Slack, and yesterday his Hon or
! rendered his decision ID favor OF tile de-
feadant company. His Honor held that
the company could not be held liable for
| the goods, because during their tranship-
menr in bond, and alter the notice of stop
| page in transitu bad been served. the
goods we're under the control and author
| ity and in the quasi Possession of the
| United States Government, a fact, Is it
| Were, in cust0dia legis.
This decision is most important as affect
| ing merchants trading with this conutrv
from tue other side of the herring pond.
! 1t shows that goods cannot be held by a
notice of stoppage in transitur after the
| Government has taken possession OF them
| for duties. Nor can the carrier company
! be held liable for failure to comply with
the notice. Far away ia old England
Winter Byard Sheppard and other manu-
| facturers trading with the Pacific Coast
are likely to take this small lesson to heart,
1 and profit by it,