Green v. Campbell (1878) · DecisionDepot

Green v. Campbell

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1878 No. No. 5299Published

Before: Coübt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a factor has ostensible authority to deal with a principal's property as their own in transactions with parties who lack notice of the actual ownership. Consequently, a demurrer to a defense asserting such authority should have been overruled.

Issues

Whether a factor has the authority to bind a principal's property in transactions with third parties who lack notice of the principal's ownership.
Whether the exclusion of evidence regarding a factor's ostensible authority constitutes reversible error when such evidence was offered under the general issue.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“under the provisions of the Civil Code, (sec. 2369) Morgan’s Sons, factors of the plaintiff, had ostensible authority to deal with the property as their own, “in transactions with persons not having notice of the actual ownership.””

Synopsis

Shipment by Factor—Lien oe Master of Vessel on Property shipped for Charges and Freights.—In an action of claim and delivery, brought by the actual owner of the property claimed, against the master of a vessel, who had no knowledge or notice of any other owner of said property than the factor or merchant, who, having ostensible authority to make, did make the shipment thereof, in the usual course of business, as his own, the recovery will be subject to the terms of such shipment.

Idem.—In such case, the master of the vessel has a lien upon the property in his possession, for proper charges and freights.

Rulings equivalent in Effect.—That a good special defense, held to be bad on demurrer, might have been proved under the general issue, will not be considered as a correction of the erroneous ruling, when it appears from the record that material evidence in support of such defense was excluded upon objection made and sustained at the trial.

Opinion — Coübt

argued that, under the circumstances disclosed by this case, the principal was bound by his factors’ act as well by the common as the statute law.

a. E. E. Morgan’s Sons were general agents. (1 Parsons on Contracts, 95; Story on Agency, secs. 110, 131; 2 Kent, [621]; Dunlap’s Payley’s Agency, 241; Wright v. Solomon, 19 Cal. [76].)

5. Factors for shipment have authority to bind the principal to payment of the freight. (Story on Agency, sec. 110; Molloy, De Jure, Bk. III, ch. viii, sec. 9.)

c. Factors, for many if not for most purposes, are treated as the owners of the goods. (Story on Agency, sec. 111; Molloy, ubi. sup. sec. 2.)

II. a. “ The lawful possession of goods being once acquired for the purpose of carriage, the carrier is not obliged to restore them to the owner again, even if the carriage be dispensed with, unless upon his being paid his due remuneration, for by the delivery he has already incurred certain risks.” The carrier has a lien thereon. (Story on Bailments, sec. 585; Angell on Carriers, sec. 368; Abbot on Shipping, [595]; Tindal v. Taylor, 4 El. & B. 219; Bark Edwin, 1 Sprague, 481; Bark Edwin v. Naumkeag Cot. Co. 1 Cliff. 322.)

MeKune & Welty, for Eespondent.

I. The plaintiff was a stranger to the charter party, and his property cannot be taken, held, or pledged to satisfy appellant’s claims against E. E. Morgan’s Sons. ( Wright v. Solomon, 19 Cal. 76.)

II. Plaintiff did not put his wheat on board the Charles Murdoch. E. E. Morgan’s Sons wrongfully and unlawfully di[589]

Green v. Campbell

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Coübt

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Opinion

AI Brief