Case Name: James and Shoemaker against M'Credie and Company
Court: South Carolina Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1793-01
Citations: 1 Bay 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: James and Shoemaker against M’Credie and Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
James and Shoemaker against M’Credie and Company.
Where goods ta "^factors') particular**^ sections con-corning them, and they, m order to enhance their them’ at the usual credit, to a merchant, ümenofatsaíet v'ards10betei" comes insoi-rent; the factors shall not with thFloss!
THIS was an action tried before a special jury, for á. quantity of iron shipped and consigned by the plaintiffs, who were factors in Philadelphia, to the defendants in ^aaneSlOU.
The defendant pleaded a discount of four casks of indi-1 go, which they, in their turn, had shipped and consigned to the plaintiffs in Philadelphia, which nearly balanced the de •, r . HlcUlClIOl tllC iron*
The plaintiffs in reply, admitted that these four casks of *nc^§° came t0 their hands ; but as there \yas not a ready sale for that article they had, in order to enhance the price, sold it at three months’ credit, to one Mr. Borger, a merchant, then itt good credit ; but before it became payable, he became insolvent, and they never received any thing for it. It also appeared from the evidence of a witness, who had been a clerk in the plaintiffs’ house at the time of the transaction, that it was then usual and customary among the merchants and factors in Philadelphia, to sell indigo on that credit; and that no orders to the contrary accompanied the indigo when consigned. m Philadelphia at the time of its arrival,
For the defendants it was then urged, that they had given no directions to sell on a, credit; and that as the plaintiffs had taken upon them to give a credit without their orders or permission for that purpose, that they were therefore responsible.
After hearing the plaintiffs’ counsel in replys

Opinion:
'The Court"
In general, every factor is bound to seli goods consigned to him for ready money only, unless he has some discretionary powers given him, or has orders to the contrary j or unless the usage and course of trade at the place where the sales are made, will warrant it; in which case, such usage and custom will justify the factor in. making the sales conformably. In the present case it has been proved to have been the course of trade in Philadel. phia, to sell indigo at three months' credit, when this sale was made ; and the plaintiffs did neither more nor less thaa every other merchant or factor did, and therefore they come within the rule of law above laid down.
The Juri/y without quitting their box, returned'a verdict for the plaintiffs to the full amount of their demand.-.