Battle v. Mack

Citations

• 33 Tex. 795

Syllabus

<p>1. The force of law has not been conceded in this country to any “ custom of meichants ” to pay reclamations on cotton alleged to be “ false packed,” on no other evidence than a certificate, sworn or otherwise, ol a broker, or of the last consignee or purchaser.</p> <p>2. A planter delivered cotton to B. & M., bis commission merchants in this State, to be forwarded by them to New York for sale. They consigned the cotton to their commission merchant in New York, who scld it to ■ one D., by whom it was shipped to a house in Liverpool, and there sold. The purchaser therp made reclamation on D., on the allegation that the cotton was “ falsely packed,” evidenced by a sworn certificate of a broker and representations of the Liverpool consignees. D. paid the reclamation, and on the same evidence it was refunded to him by the New York merchant, who was reimbursed on the same evidence by B. & M., who, in the meantime, had fully accounted and settled with the planter for the proceeds of the cotton, and the planter himself had departed this life. B. & M. bring this suit against the representatives of the planter for the amount so paid by them on reclamation. Held, that the relation of principal and agent between the planter and B. & M. ceased at the time of their settlement, or at all events t.heir agency for him was revoked by his death ; and therefore this litigation does net involve the relation or the law of principal and agent. Held, further, that the reclamation made on and paid by B. & M. constituted no valid demand against the planter’s estate, unless there was proof establishirg the fact that the cotton was falsely packed, and the amount of loss resulting therefrom; and that no custom of merchants to refund on a broker’s certificate, or other extrajudicial evidence of the false packing and loss, would suffice to establish the liability of the defendants.</p>