Court Opinion

ID: 8637772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:48:06.667468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:59.300736
License: Public Domain

BLATCHFORD. District Judge.
In this case, I think that the plaintiff became the bona fide holder, in trust for the Atlanta National Bank, for a valuable consideration, without notice, of the bill of lading of the cotton, and that he held it as collateral security for the payment of the draft on Bennett, Van Pelt & Co., and not as collateral security merely for the acceptance of that draft. The two bills of lading delivered to Gilbert S. Van Pelt, the shipper of the cotton. engaged to deliver the cotton to “order,” and were duly endorsed by him. as the shipper therein named, to the libellant. The draft drawn by Gilbert S. Van Pelt on Bennett, Van Pelt & Co., was made payable to the order of the libellant, at the request of the agents in Savannah of the Atlanta Bank, who purchased it for that bank with the money of that bank, on the faith of the bill of lading as security for its payment. The agents of the vessel in Savannah were guilty of great negligence in putting upon the copy of the bill of lading which they retained and furnished to the purser of the ship, words to the effect that the cotton was to be delivered to Bennett, Van Pelt & Co. On the strength of this the purser made out the bill for the freight to that firm, and sent notice of the arrival of the cotton to that firm, and caused the vessel to wrongfully deliver the cotton to that firm. And the agents of the ship in New York were guilty of even grosser negligence in delivering the cotton to Bennett, Van Pelt & Co. on their request, and on their endorsement of the ship’s copy of the bill of lading, without inquiring after, or demanding the production of, the other two copies of the bill. The whole transaction appears, on the evidence, to have been a well contrived and successful scheme of fraud on the part of the two Van Pelts, one in Savannah and the other in New York, to obtain possession of the cotton without paying anything for it, and they were aided in this by a negligence on the part of the agents of the ship in both places, for which the ship is responsible, and without which the fraud could not have been consummated. The title to the cotton passed to the libellant by the endorsement to him of the bill of lading, to an amount, as between him and the vessel, sufficient to pay the draft, and a delivery, of such cotton to any other person than the libellant was a wrongful delivery, and makes the vessel liable therefor to the libellant. The ship ought to have stored the cotton, at the risk of the libellant, until the bills of lading held by him were produced.
The testimony of Gilbert S. Van Pelt as to the transferring of the bill of lading merely as security for the acceptance of the draft, and that of. James C. Van Pelt as to what transpired between him and the libellant in regard to the cotton, are entirely unworthy of credit, and I reject wholly the testimony of both of them. They are manifestly swearing to carry through the fraud they devised.
There was no laches on the part of the libellant. The ship arrived on Sunday, and. on the next day, the agents of the ship gave to Bennett, Van’ Pelt & Co. an order to receive the cotton from the ship, and on the latter day and the day following they received it. The ship never gave any notice to the libellant to receive the cotton, or that it was ready for delivery. This was a delivery to the wrong party, without affording to the proper party any opportunity to take his property.
Although the cestui que trust is the Atlanta National Bank, the suit is properly brought in the name of the libellant, who holds the legal title, as trustee, to the cotton and the draft. The fact that the draft and the endorsement of the bill of lading run to him by the name of “B. Seaman, cashier,” do not make it necessary that, because he is, in fact, the cashier of the Fourth Nation*886al Bank oí New York, the suit should be brought in the name of that bank.
This decision was affirmed by the circuit court, on appeal. [Case No. 13,859. On appeal to the supreme court, the decree of the circuit court was affirmed. 14 Wall. (81 U. S.) 98.]
As the value of the cotton, less the freight on it, is admitted to have been more than the amount of the draft, there must be a decree for the libellant for the amount of the draft, $8,300, with interest from its maturity, .February 19th, 1868, with costs.