59 N.Y. 510, Ontario Bank v. New Jersey Steamboat Co.

Citation59 N.Y. 510
Party NameTHE ONTARIO BANK, Appellant, v. THE NEW JERSEY STEAMBOAT COMPANY, Respondent.
Case DateJanuary 19, 1875
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Page 510

59 N.Y. 510

THE ONTARIO BANK, Appellant,

v.

THE NEW JERSEY STEAMBOAT COMPANY, Respondent.

New York Court of Appeal

January 19, 1875

Argued Dec. 17, 1874.

Page 511

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 512

COUNSEL

Wm. Henry Arnoux for the appellant. Plaintiff was the legal owner of the goods. (Factors' Act, Edm. Stat., 462; Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. [ U. S.], 396; Bk. of Rochester v. Jones, 4 N.Y. , 497, 501; City Bk. v. Rome R. R. Co., 44 Id., 136; Cayuga Bk. v. Daniels, 47 Id., 631; McNeil v. Tenth Nat. Bk., 46 Id., 325; First Nat. Bk. v. Kelly, Id., 34; Wilkes v. Ferris, 5 J. R., 335; Rawls v. Deshler, 3 Keyes, 572; Brown v. Heathcote, 1 Atk., 160; Greaves v. Hipke, 2 B. & A., 131; Atkinson v. Maling, 2 T. R., 465; Pleasants v. Pendleton, 6 Rand., 473; Ingraham v. Wheeler, 6 Comst., 277; Ricker v. Cross, 5 N. H., 571; Gardner v. Howland, 2 Pick., 599; Dows v. Greene, 24 N.Y. 638; Marine Bk. v. Wright, 48 Id., 1; Bailey v. H. R. R. R. Co., 49 Id., 70; Ind. Bk. v. Colgate, A. L. J., 1871, 390.) Plaintiff being legal owner of the goods remained so until payment of the drafts. (The Sallie Magee, 3 Wall., 451; Gibson v. Stevens, 8 How. [ U. S.], 396; City Bk. v. Rome R. R. Co., 44 N.Y. 136; Cayuga Bk. v. Daniels, 47 Id., 631; Rawls v. Deshler, 3 Keyes, 572.) The drawee of a bill of exchange drawn against merchandise, is not entitled to the bills of lading or shipping receipt, or to possession of the goods upon his acceptance of the bill of exchange against the lawful holder of such bills of lading or shipping receipt. ( Lanfear v. Blossom, 1 La. Ann., 148; 4 Edm. Stat., 462, § 5; Cartwright v. Wilmerding, 24 N.Y. 532.) If a carrier delivers goods at a place to which they are not addressed an action lies against him. (Brown on Cor., 195; Add. on Con., 810;

Page 513

Stephenson v. Hart, 1 M. & P., 357; Perkins v. Smith, 1 Wils., 328; Youl v. Harbottle, Peake, 68; Devereaux v. Barclay, 2 B. & A., 702; Stevens v. Elwall, 4 M. & S., 259; Meyer v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 24 Wis., 586; Redf. on Car., § 318; Ostrander v. Brown, 15 J. R., 39; Hawkins v. Hoffman, 6 Hill, 588; Powell v. Myers, 26 Wend., 591; Clarke v. Spence, 10 Watts, 337; Johnson v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 33 N.Y. 610; McEwan v. R. R. Co., 33 Ind., 368; Maghee v. Cam. R. R. Co., 45 N.Y. 514, 522; Pars. on Con., 644; Lichbarrow v. Mason, 2 T. R., 63; Fitzhugh v. Wiman, 9 N.Y. , 559, 566; Ellis v. Willard, Id., 529.) The words "advise R. Logan" were not a special instruction or an order from plaintiff to deliver the goods to Logan. (The Thames, 7 Blatch., 520; Bonita v. Mosquera, 2 Bosw., 401; Pegram v. Casson, 10 Id., 505; Cartwright v. Wilmerding,...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP