Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-05-16
COURT DECISIONS.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRclNIAN- PILor.
Notes OF Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
FINCH v. GREGG.

FINCH v. GREGG.
Supreme Court OF North Carolina.
March 13, 1900.
WHEN CORN WAS SHIPPED ON A
BILL OF LADING WITH DRAFT
ATTACHED. WHICH THE SHIP
PER ASSIGNED FOR VALUE, THE
CONSCIENCE CAN RECOVER FOR
DEFECTS IN THE CORN FROM
THE ASSIGNEE OF THE BILL OF
LADING.
IN SUCH CASE WHERE CONSIG-
NEE PAID THE DRAFT HE MAY
ATTACH FOR HIS DAMAGES
OTHER CORN SHIPPED IN THE
SAME WAY. BY THE SAME CON-
SIGNOR. THE DRAFT AND BILL
OF LADING FOR WHICH WAS
ALSO ASSIGNED TO THE DE-
PENDANT.
The court says:
The defendant Gregg, in Chicago.
sold to plaintiffs, French, Richardson
q Co.. at Springhope. N. c., 4 car load
OF good CORN" Said Gregg drew
draft on plaintiffs for the
price OF the corn. and sold 1t to
the Seymour-Daune Company, to which
was attached the bill of lading, which
was made out to his order, and which
he assigned by Endorsement to the
purchasers of the draft. The plaintiffs
paid said draft, but the car load Of corn
was injured. and the damage sustained
thereby is'the ground of plaintiffs ac-
'ton. In May, 1889, the defendant Gregg
sold another car load Of corn to Finch,
Richardson & Co.. SprInghope, N. c.,
and also car load to Woodward &c
copeland at the same place. AS with
the January shipment the bills of lad
ing were made out to the order of ship
per. who Endorsed them to the Sew
mour- Dame Company, with a draft at
tached. drawn on the purchasers in
Sprlnghope. On arrival the two car
loads were attached before r. justice of
the peace (the amount claimed being
less than 5000 for the damages above
stated. as sustained on the January
Shipment To this proceeding Joseph
Gregg alone was defendant, but the
seymour Dame Company appeared be-
fore the Justice of the peace, through
their attorney. and were allowed to
make themselves parties defendant,
and, intervening. they defended said
action. In the superior court, on APP
peal, the plaintiffs We're allowed to
amend the attachment proceedings by
making the Seymour-Danne Company
parties thereto. When the bill of lad
ing. payable to order OF shipper. was
assigned by him, for value q cashing
OF draft upon purchaser attached), to
the Seymour-Danne Company, the lat
ter became owner Of the corn as against
all the world except the shipper, as to
whom the assignment was a security
LOT the amount OF the draft. Upon the
arrival or the corn shipped In May at
SpringhoDe. Gregg had no interest
therein which could be attached unless,
POSSIBLY, 1t had been shown that the
amount to be paid for the corn was
greater than the amount for which the
Seymour-Danne Company held the bill
or lading as security; but that point
uoes not arise here. But when the Sey-
mour-Danne Company took the bill OF
ladlng on both occasions equally, they
look the contract OF the shipper. and
they stood in his shoes, with the same
rights; no greater, TO less The rights
OF the purchasers (the plaintiffs) were
not impaired or disturbed by the
change of ownership in the property"
Ihey have the same defenses against
the assignee of the bill of ladng as
against the shipper. When the January
car load arrived. the plaintiffs could
either have refused to receive and nav
for the corn. or they could have re-
ceived 1t. and. upon notification OF de-
fects to the vendor in a reasonable time.
have offered to return the goods. or, If
sued for the price. have set I'D loss nv
reason OF SUCH defects. But here, the
corn being shipped on bill of lading
with draft attached, the vendee was
compelled to pay upon the delivery of
the corn Gf 1t was otherwise, liberty to
inspect should have been shown, and
an action lies to recover back money
paid for defects in the corn, unless the
claim was waived by delay to demand
sla ,rrrNr
tachment in May Whether there had
been n waiver was an issue of fact for
the jury. to have been proven by the
party alleging it. Both parties have
agreed upon the facts as set out
in the Justices return, and no waiver
is therein found. The plaintiffs had,
therefore. the same ground of action
for damages against the Seymour
Dame Company for the defects in the
January car load that they would have
had against their assignor, Gregg; and
on the arrival of two car loads In May,
likewise assigned to the Seymour
Dame Company, while plaintiffs could
not attach them as the Property of
Gregg, nor for damages due by Gregg,
they could attach said car loads as the
property of the Seymour Dame Com
pany. and for the damages sustained
by delivery OF n defective car load OF
coTn 10 tnein Dy tnaL company In jan
uary 1t Is true the action was origi-
nally begun against Gregg alone, which
could not be sustained. as no jurisdic-
ton as to him was obtained by attach
Ing the two car loads OF grain, which,
by the assignment OF the bills Of lad
Ing. had become the property OF the
Seymour Dame Company; but the lat
ter came in and were made parties be-
Tor the Justice. by which the court was
seized of jurisdiction as to them, and
on appeal the judge properly permitted
the attachment proceedings to be
amended to embrace them. as they were
already parties and claiming an inter