Court Opinion

ID: 8634376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:42:46.126167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:52.905266
License: Public Domain

BETTS, District Judge.
This was an action for the recovery of $1,050, with interest upon the same, money advanced by libellant to the consignee of certain packages of goods shipped by him from Philadelphia to New-York. The consignee, desirous of raising that amount of money, applied to the libellant for the same upon the security of the bill of lad-. ing, which, upon the loan being made, was duly endorsed and delivered to him. • There is nothing in the evidence to impugn the fairness of the transaction between the parties, and although it appears that the purchaser of the goods was probably insolvent at the time of the sale of the goods, it does not appear that the libellant was aware of the fact.
There is no doubt that if the purchaser had fraudulently induced the seller to part with his goods by representing that he was solvent when the fact was otherwise, the vendor would have a right, by a stoppage In transitu, to reclaim the goods. Such fraudulent purchase, as between the vendor and vendee, would not divest the owner of his right and title to the goods. But when the vendor has, for a valuable consideration, parted with the possession of the goods, and third parties have innocently and in good faith purchased them from the vendee, the title of such third person cannot be disturbed by any equities which the original owner might have possessed. 6 Metc. [Mass.] 68.
For the convenience of commercial transactions, bills of lading have been allowed to become negotiable instruments: and upon the faith of them it is usual and customary for commission merchants to make advances. By such endorsement of the bill of lading the holder of it becomes, as against all the world, the owner of the goods. Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 385; Nathan v. Giles, 5 Taunt. 558. The bill of lading transfers the property to the consignee; and it seems to be conceded that the assignment of it by the consignee, by way of sale or mortgage, will pass the property, though no actual delivery of the goods be made, provided they were then at sea. 2 Kent, Comm. 549; McNeill v. Glass, 1 Mart. [N. S.] 261.
It is no defence to the claim of the consignee, that the goods have been attached or seized by virtue of any judicial process. The contract of the carrier is, that he will deliver the goods in good order and condition to the shipper or to his assigns, (the dangers of the seas only excepted.) He thus guarantees to protect the right of possession of the shipper and his assigns. He had the right to the possession of the goods as against the sheriff, and could have interposed in the re-plevin suit, and had an immediate trial of the right of the sheriff to take them from his possession. 2 Rev. St. p. 432, §§ 13, 16, 17.
The libellant is, upon the proofs and the law, entitled to a decree in his favor for the value of the goods claimed by him and his costs, and the cause must be referred to a commissioner to report upon such value.