Court Opinion

ID: 6607045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:14:38.464023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:13.345331
License: Public Domain

Smith, Justice.
— I concur in the opinion of my venerable brother, as to the second action ; and subscribe, indeed, to all the general principles, which he has stated, in reference to the first. But it is my misfortune to view in a different manner from him, the important transaction of the 5th of November 1796: for whatever may have been the antecedent rights of Keppele & Zantzinger, the conversation of that day, does, in my opinion, essentially change the situation of the parties. The bill was thenceforth entirely at the risk of Carr & Sons ; and if Swanwick had failed, the very next day, before any arrangement for payment, or before any laches in the endeavor to obtain payment, Carr & Sons could never have recovered from Keppele & Zantzinger, either on the original account, or on the indorsement of the bill. The risk of Keppele & Zantzinger being thus at end, all their legal and equitable claim to the damages, on account of risk, must also be extinct.
In an early stage of the transaction, too, I think, there is some fallacy in treating Carr & Sons merely as the agents of their debtor, in relation to the bill of exchange. If they had lost or destroyed it; if, on the protest, the drawer’s friend had paid it in London, for his honor ; or, if Carr & Sons, after an acceptance, had released the acceptor, with or without a consideration ; surely, in none of these instances, could a claim to twenty per cent, damages arise ; and all that Keppele & Zantzinger could insist upon, in law, justice or usage, would be, that the bill, under such circumstances, should be deemed a payment of their debt, notwithstanding the conditional terms of the remittance.
In these sentiments, I am uninfluenced by any consideration of attachment to the American merchant, or of enmity to the British merchant; and I think, they will be found to conform best to the honor of all merchants, which, like the chastity of a female, should be free from suspicion, as well as free from taint.
McKean, Chief Justice.
— Upon the refusal of the tender, in November 1796, Zantzinger declared, that the bill of exchange should be at the risk of *138Carr & Sons for the future. The meaning of this declaration, I understand to be (at least, it is a reasonable interpretation), that Carr & Sons themselves should be answerable to Keppele & Zantzinger, for the principal, interest and damages, even if Swanwick should become insolvent. Under the view of the case, I concur with my brother Shippen, in all his remarks which he has delivered to the jury.
Ingersoll and Brinton, for Keppele & Zantzinger. Dallas, for Carr & Sons.
Verdict for Keppele & Zantzinger in both actions.