HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0035 and id is 1 raw text is: 6 EAST, 31. NEWSOM V. THORNTON 1199
moiety, than if be bad had the whole : [31] and then the plaintiffs having exercised
that right, in consequence of the insolvency of Church, as far as they could in fact by
demanding (a) the goods of the captain [32) of the Russell before their delivery to
goods; which could only be on the ground contended for by Mr. Wallace, the counsel
for the plaintiff, that the property was in the consignee. But though the property
were in the consignee, yet, as I stated to your Lordships in the outset, if the consignor
had paid to the consignee all that he had advanced on account of the goods, the
consignor would have had a right to the possession of the goods, even though they
had got into the hands of the consignee; and upon paying or tendering that money
and demanding the goods the property would have revested in him, and he might
have maintained trover for them. But admitting that the consignee had the legal
property, and was therefore entitled to a verdict, still the question remained what
damages he should recover. And in ascertaining them regard was had to the true
merits of the case, and the relative situation of each party. If the consignee had
obtained the actual possession of the goods he would have had no other equitable
claim on them than for 1501. He was entitled to no more; the defendant was liable
to pay no more; and therefore the verdict was given for that sum. This case pro-
ceeded precisely upon the same principles as the case of Wiseman v. Vandeput; where,
though it was determined that the legal property in the goods, before they arrived,
was in the consignee, yet the Court of Chancery held that the consignee should not
avail himself of that beyond what was due to him. But for what was due, the Court
directed an account; and if any thing were due from the Italians to the Bonnells,
that should be paid the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in this cause are exactly in the
situation of the plaintiffs in that case; for they have the legal property in the
goods ; and therefore if any thing be due to them, even in equity, that must be paid
before any person can take the goods from them ; and 5201. was due to them, and has
not been paid. After these authorities, taking into consideration also that there is
no case whatever in which it has been holden that goods can be stopped in transitil
after they have been sold and paid for, or money advanced upon them bontb fide, and
without notice, I do not conceive that the case is open to any arguments of policy or
convenience. But if it should be thought so, I beg leave to say, that in all mercantile
transactions one great point to be kept uniformly in view is to make the circulation
and negotiation of property as quick, as easy, and as certain as possible. If this
judgment stand, no man will be safe either in buying, or in lending money upon goods
at sea. That species of property will be locked up; and many a man, who could
support himself with honour and credit if he could dispose of such property to supply
a present occasion, would receive a check, which industry, caution, or attention could
not surmount. If the goods are in all cases to be liable to the original owner for the
price, what is there to be bought? There is nothing but the chance of the market,
and that the buyer expects as his profit on purchasing the goods, without paying an
extra price for it. But Turing has transferred the property to Freeman, in order that
he might transfer it again, and has given him credit for the value of the goods.
Freeman having transferred the goods again for value, I am of opinion that Turing
had neither property, lien, or a right to seize iq, transitu. The great advantage which
this country possesses over most if not all other parts of the known world, in point
of foreign trade, consists in the extent of credit given on exports, and the ready
advances made on imports. But amidst all these indulgencies the wise merchant is
not unmindful of his true interests and the security of his capital. I will beg leave
to state, in as few words as possible, what is a very frequent occurrence in the City of
London. A cargo of goods of the value of 20001. is consigned to a merchant in
London; and the moment they are shipped the merchant abroad draws upon his
correspondent here to the value of that cargo: and by the first post or ship he
sends him advice, and incloses the bill of lading. The bills, in most cases, arrive
before the cargo; and then the merchant in London must resolve what part
be will take. If he accept the bills he becomes absolutely and unconditionably liable ;
if he refuse them he disgraces his correspondent, and loses his custom directly. Yet
to engage for 20001. without any security from the drawer is a bold measure. The
goods may be lost at sea; and then the merchant here is left to recover his money
(a) Vid. Bohtlingk v. Inglis, 3 East, 381.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0035&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)