Case Name: Pourie and Dawson against The Rev. Hugh Fraser
Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1800
Citations: 2 Bay 269
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pourie and Dawson against The Rev. Hugh Fraser.
Judges: Present, Grimke, Bat, Johnson and Trezevant.
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 269–272

Head Matter:
Pourie and Dawson against The Rev. Hugh Fraser.
Charleston District,
1800.
A planter sending rice to a factor for sale, aud to send him goods, will not authorize the factor to take up goods in his name and on his account from a merchant, unless specially authorized for that purpose; .though apian-ter may by a subsequent aet ratify such contract mads by his factor with a merchant for goods. liu t an omission of such merchants’ account in a settlement between a planter and liis* factor will not amount to any such ratification of the contract with the merchant.
ASSUMPSIT for goods sold, &c. 96/. sterling. Tried at Georgetown, April, 1800, before Bay, J.
In this case it appeared, that Pourie, one of the plaintiffs, did business as a factor, in the sale and disposal of crops, &c. independent of the mercantile transactions of the house of Pourie and Dawson ; and that the defendant had consigned rice to him for sale, to a much larger amount than the debt claimed in this suit; and that while the rice was in his hands, he took up goods from the house of Pourie and Dawson, to the amount of 96/. which he sent to the defendant Fraser. That some time afterwards, Fraser and Pourie came to a settlement about the rice, and Pourie gave his bond for the balance of the proceeds to Fraser; but in this settlement, this 96/. was not carried into the account. Pourie, in a short time subsequent to this settlement became insolvent, and took the benefit of the insolvent debtors’ act. Whereupon, Mr. Dawson, the solvent copartner, instituted this suit for recovery of this account entered in the books of Pourie and Dawson.
The defence set up in this case, was, that Fraser had never authorized Pourie to take up goods in his name from any person or persons whatsoever. That it was true, he had sent him his crop of rice for sale, and had ordered him to send him up the articles mentioned in the account, which he intended should be paid for out of the proceeds of the rice; but never had it in contemplation, that his factor should run him in debt, or pledge his credit with any person, or to any amount whatever; and that the omission to give credit for the amount of this account, when he took Pourie's bond, was a mistake in the hurry of settling a long account which had subsisted between them.
The jury, under the direction of the judge, gave a verdict for the defendant; and this was a motion for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and as a verdict against law.
Mr. Guillará, in favour of the motion,
insisted, that the credit was given to Fraser by the house of Pourie and Paw-son, and the entries in their books proved it; and it was not denied, but that the goods went into Fraser’s' possession. That the entries in merchants’ and tradesmen’s books had long been admitted as evidence of the contract between them and their customers in this country, under the act of assembly; and this case ought not to be an exception to that rule. That Fraser himself, by his settlement with Pourie, and taking his bond for the balance of the sales of his rice, had confirmed this contract, if any doubt could arise on that head before, by not taking it into the account on that settlement.
That Fraser had afterwards sued Pourie on this bond, which reduced him to insolvency ; and obliged him to take the benefit of the insolvent debtors’ act, which was in law a release of the debt.
Mr. Deas, for defendant, in reply,
admitted the general doctrine, that entries in merchants’ and tradesmen’s books were evidences of contracts in this country, where customers were in the habits of dealing with them. But this was a case of a very different complexion. Here the ac count was opened between Pourie and Dawson and the defendant, at the instance and request of Pourie, the factor of Fraser ; and here he said, a very important question presented itself to the view of the court; had he any authority to open this account with the house of Pourie and Dawson ? It was not pretended on the trial, nor is now, that he had any express authority so to do. Will then his acting as a factor in the sale and disposal of rice, or other produce of the country, give this authority to a factor ? He was bold to say, it would not; and it would be a very mischievous doctrine if it did. The law relating to principals and factors would warrant no such thing, unless some special power was given for that purpose. The credit of the planters in this country, it was well known, stood very high ; and to permit factors to speculate upon that credit as they pleased, while they pocketed the money of their employers, would indeed prostrate the interests of the planters at the feet of their agents, the factors. ,
That what was called a subsequent ratification in this case, the omission to credit this account when the settlement took place, and the bond was given for the balance of the proceeds of the rice Pourie had sold ; that appears to be a mistake or an omission in the hurry of business, which his client was willing and ready to rectify at any time, by giving credit on the bond for that amount; be that however as it may, Pourie and Daxvson had nothing to do with it; as they were no parties to the transaction.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Where a factor is authorized generally to transact all the business of a planter, as to buying and selling for the use and account of a plantation, in such case the act of the factor will bind his principal. But if a factor is employed to sell rice or other produce, and to send goods to his principal, he cannot bind him by taking up goods for his principal, and the merchant who trusts him must look to the factor for his money.
If, however, a planter was by any subsequent act to ratify such a contract, it would be a strong presumptive evidence that he had been so authorized to make it, and would be binding on the principal; but the omission or mistake in an item in the settlement of accounts between the factor and his principal, will not amount to any such ratification of a contract with a third person.
Let the rule for a new trial be discharged.
Present, Grimke, Bat, Johnson and Trezevant.