The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-05-27
A corroN SUIT.
Interesting Case Decided IN New
Orleans Court.

L
Orleans Court.
New Orleans Times Democrat
Judge Theard yesterday handed down
decision involving a considerable amount in
cotton dealing. and gave ruling that Is OF
considerable interest to cotton men generally
II was in the case Of Lee Lippman VS.
Tchuia Cooperative Store. and the judy
ment given for the plaintiff.
! The action was one In which tho plaintiff
sought to recover the difference in prices
between certain grades OF cotton shipped
TO him by defendant aud those called for by
the contract OF sale between them. A writ
OF attachment was issued against the de-
fendaht on the statutory ground that II was
a nonresident. ana curator ad hoo was
appointed TO represent It. Defendant, how
ever, appeared, through counsel OF it's own
selection, and In ats answer ayerred. SUB
stantlally that the contract was evidenced
by letters, and provided, among other things,
that the rules OF the New orleans cotton eN-
change should govern the dealings Of the
parties; that, Ia addition thereto, all ac-
count sales and crcGit memoranda and bills
which were furnished the defendant by PLAN
tin bore the stamp, IN prominent type,
subject to the rules Of the New Orleans cot.
ton exchange that said rules provide that
in cases OF difference, such rs is alleged, no
tice must be given to the shipper Within 100
days from date Of sale, after which time
the claim Is barred: that the cotton was nc.
graded; that the plaintiff knew that the
cotton was 70 be purchased by defendant from
various individuals and that II was peces-
sary 10 mako settlement with those parties
within a reasonable time after the cotton
had been shipped that in few Instances
shortly after shipment, plaintiff notified de-
PENDANT OF diherences In classification, ana,
as notice had been promptly given, before
settlement with those from whom the cot
ton had been purchased, the claims were al
lowed that the cotton complained OF was
mr. I
but that no claim was made for differences
IN classification or for any other allowance
Until May 49, 1899 ut which time full set
tlement had been made by defendant with
the parties from whom cotton had been
purchased and at which time il was impos-
sibe for the defendant TO hold its original
vendors; that plaintiffs failure TO give prompt
notic1 as required by the New Orleans cot
ton exchange rules. prevents a claim being
made on his behalf, and that such claim. II
any ever existed, is barred by his negligence
and laches.
1t was agreed tnat the court should in
quire only into the liability vel non OF the
defendant, and that should Il hold plantiif
entitled TO recover the amount for which
judgment should Re rendered would be sup
piled by the parties, without prejudice to the
right OF defendant 10 appeal, as though the
the court
In giving his decisions the Judge said:
Defendants contention that the dealings
between itself and the plaintiff were TO be
L
cotton exchange finds no support In the con-
tract. Nor Ia this contention supported by
the printed words. This sale subject to
New Orleans cotton exchange I. o, b. rules,
which appeared upon the memoranda Of
sales forwarded to defendant by plaintiff upon
receipt OF each sh pmout OF cotton in New
| Orleans II at all binding upon plaintiff. Il
question about which ! am in great doubt
these memoranda being nothing more than
receipts not eoncurred in by defendant and
unnecessarily issued upon blank forms used
Unfortunately by an employe who was not
authorized 10 alter existing contracts or TO
tlon-the printed words quoted plainly bind
plaintiff only TO the rules controlling I. o. b.
sales. Those rules do provide that all
claims for loss In weight snail be forwarded
within twenty days, and for deficiency IN
grade within thirty-Aye days after dis
charge OF vessel Mt point Of destination. other
wise such claim shall not be binding on
/ the seller But such Is not the limitation
pleaded in bar by defendant; the ayerment
OF IT'S answer is that the rules OF the New
Orleans cotton exchange provide that in
cases of differences On gradesl notice must
be given to the shipper within 100 days from
/ the date Of sale This no days limitation
I is not 10 be found In the T. o. b. rules; II Is
Nv the rules governing transactions N spots
To these latter rules the memoranda of sales
make no reference. they can not bo invoked
against plaintiff Having thus chosen 10
rely upon rules which 0nd no application
/ here defendant can not be permitted to shift
I its ground and stand upon a limitation pro-
vided for by entirely different rules ana not
pleaded Moreover, the o. h. rules appeor
TO have been framed with reference OK
7 clusivelv 10 sales ut New Orleans: (Rules a.
n and On; II has not been suggested. nor do
I understand that they are TO regulate { o, b.
Halcs at points outside Of New Orleans.
shipments were to be + o. b. at Tchuia,
Miss"