In re Talbot & Poggi

Decision Date16 March 1911
Citation185 F. 986
PartiesIn re TALBOT & POGGI.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Charles Trosk, for petitioner.

Frederick L. Guggenheimer, for trustee.

HAND District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

So far as concerns the goods in general order the petition must succeed. This follows from Lord Kenyon's decision in Northey v. Field, 2 Esp. 613. A similar ruling is reported as being made by Lord Ellenborough in Nix v. Olive reported in Abbott's Shipping, p. 377. In these cases the custody of the carrier is regarded as continued by the customs officials, who take the goods from the carrier and keep them till the buyer pays duties and freight. This case was followed likewise in Burnham v. Winsor, 4 Fed.Cas. 784, and in Mottram v. Heyer, 5 Denio (N.Y.) 629. Justice Barrett, on page 258 of Fraschieris v. Henriques, 6 Abb.Prac. (N.S.) 251 says that the contention was freely conceded at the bar.

As to the other goods, the transit was over, and the trustee must succeed. I do not mean that mere entry without unlading is in itself enough, because such a contention is answered by Harris v. Pratt, 17 N.Y. 249, in which goods had been entered while the property was still on board the vessel, and in which it was held that the transit was not over. That this was the theory appears from the words of Judge Denio on page 262 of 17 N.Y. On the other hand, in Mottram v. Heyer, supra, Chancellor Walworth, on page 632 of 5 Denio (N.Y.) distinctly says obiter that, if the goods have once been landed, the freight paid, and entry made, the custody of the officials is for the benefit of the buyer and the transit is at an end. The language is too long to quote, but the following words are significant:

'And in such a case (entry under a warehousing system) I have no doubt that the right of stoppage in transitu should be considered as at an end the moment the goods are thus deposited, after a perfect entry for that purpose has been made.'

He based his actual decision upon the rule of Northey v. Fields supra, holding (page 360) that:

'The facts in evidence would have justified the jury to find that the goods were not deposited in the public store, under any warehousing provisions of the revenue law, but had been taken there by the customs house officers because the consignees had neglected to pay the duties and obtain a permit to land the goods.'

This is also the explanation given of the case by Justice Barrett in Fraschieris v. Henriques, supra, pages 259, 260, of 6 Abb. Prac. (N.S.), which is itself directly in point upon the facts at bar.

Cartwright v. Wilmerding, 24 N.Y. 521, although a case under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Buss v. Long Island Storage Warehouse Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • April 10, 1933
    ...Goods Co., 169 F. 612 (C. C. A. 2); In re Burke & Co. (D. C.) 140 F. 971; In re Darlington Co. (D. C.) 163 F. 385; In re Talbot & Poggi (D. C.) 185 F. 986. It is now a part of the Sales of Goods Act of this state, New York Personal Property Law (Consol. Laws, c. 41), § 139 (1) (a), (2) (b).......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT