Halliday v. Hamilton

Citations

• 78 U.S. 560
• 20 L. Ed. 214
• 11 Wall. 560
• 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1502

Syllabus

<p>A. in St. Louis having a standing agreement with B. & Co., in New Orleans, to ship produce to them, drawing against the shipments — the balance of any draft on one shipment not discharged by its proceeds, to be paid from the proceeds of any other shipment — bought of C., residing at Cairo, on the Mississippi, a hundred miles and more below St Louis, a specific number of sacks of corn, then lying at a landing on the river somewhat above Cairo, though much below St. Louis, and received an order for its delivery. He did not pay for it, though the transaction was impliedly one for cash. A. delivered his order to the agents of a steamer at St. Louis, then about to go down the river to New Orleans. These gave to him a regular bill of lading, agreeing to deliver the specified number of sacks of corn to B. & Co., in New Orleans. On the same day A. drew his bill of exchange on B. & Co., in New Orleans, telling them to charge the draft to the account of this specific shipment ; and attaching to his bill of exchange, the bill- of lading thus received, sold the draft in the market. Being forwarded, it was paid at maturity by B. & Co., in New Orleans; they having had no notice of any difficulty. They were at the time in advance to A. on account of other shipments. The steamer set off on her voyage, and stopping at the place where the sacks of corn were, took them on board. Proceeding further on her voyage she came to Oairo, C.’s residence. C. having learned that A. had failed, had not paid for the corn and was insolvent, issued an attachment, and on the arrival of the steamer seized the corn and took it off the boat. On suit brought by B. & Co., for damages, held that after the boat took the corn on board a transfer of the property to B. & Co. was effected, and that C. had made himself liable for his act of seizure and asportation.</p>