Case Name: RALSTON vs. PAMAR
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1817-06
Citations: 5 Mart. (o.s.) 3
Docket Number: 
Parties: RALSTON vs. PAMAR.
Judges: 
Reporter: Martin (Louisiana Term Reports)
Volume: 5
Pages: 3–6

Head Matter:
RALSTON vs. PAMAR.
East'n District.
June 1817.
Appeal from the court of the. parish and city of New-Orleans.
He who contracts to import. good for another, must Strictly comely with the orders he receives.
This was an action tor goods, wares and merchandize sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, and the general issue was pleaded.
There was judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.
By the statement of facts, it was admitted that the defendant received the property, which the bill of lading, annexed to the record, calls for, entered the same, and secured the duties-that on opening the crates he called a survey and procured the report annexed to the record-that one witness, (Harrison) declared it was almost impossible to cause an order to he executed, so as to comply in all respects with the wishes of the purchaser-that the prices and qualities would frequently vary a little-that the goods were yet unsold, and in the state in which they were received.
It was agreed that the documents accompanying the record, should be read in the supreme court.
These were a protest made by the defendant, before a notary public, and the report of die gentlemen called upon to view the goods.
The notary, in his protest, stated that, having called UDOD the nlaintiff. he declared to hint that certain goods, wares and merchantlize, which he bad caused to be sbipped from Liverpool, in Great-Britain, in the ship Eliza, by order and for the account of the defendant, were not conformable to said order, being of much higher prices, and yet the quality of the goods of a very inferior degree, the price considered; and. that the defendant had, as is customary, given bond for the said duties at the custom-house, and required the plaintiff to take back the said. goods and merchandize, and to pay, or give counter sureties for the payment of the bonds signed by the defendant for the duties thereof: for and because the said goods, in their quality and price, were not what the defendant had ordered him to cause to be shipped : and also, that, as the defendant was willing to do, ia this business, all that a reasonable dealer could do, upon the loss and inconveniences resulting from the premises, he was willing the whole affair should be left to the arbitration of two discreet merchants of the city, to be chosen, one by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant, and to the wholly governed by their decision all award. which the plaintiff answered, he had forwarded the order given him by the defendant, as he received it, and if it had not been executed, he was not to be blamed, nor would he have any thing to do or say further in the business.
By the report of the merchants, called by the defendant to view the goods, it appeared that they were of much higher prices than those ordered.

Opinion:
MATHEWS, J.
delivered the opinion of the court. From the documents, accompanying the statement of facts, agreed upon by the parties, it appears that the plaintiff claims the value of certain china and glass ware, procured and purchased by him for the appellee, at the request and in pursuance of orders, given by the latter which were not punctually executed. On account of the variance between the articles ordered by the appellee, and those procured an sent to him, both as to the things and their prices, he protested against receiving them on his own account, and refused to pay for them.
It is true he had them in possession, so far a was necessary for the purpose of entering the at the custom-house, and securing the duties but, this act, as the goods were to be landed, being equally beneficial to all who might be interested in the property, ought not to be prejudicial to him. It cannot alter the nature of the contract between the appellaut and appellee. The former, as factor, or attorney, could only bind the latter to the extent of the authority given, which, if not exactly attended to, must free him from every obligation arising out of the agreement.
Duncan for the plaintiff, Grymes for the defendant.
Ti'e evitleuce shews, that the orders of the priucipal were not executed by the agent, as they ought to have been.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the parish court be affirmed. with costs.