60 Cal. 454, 5,534, Chicago Taylor Printing Press Co. v. Lowell
|Citation:||60 Cal. 454|
|Party Name:||THE CHICAGO TAYLOR PRINTING PRESS COMPANY v. NATHAN R. LOWELL|
|Attorney:||Henry E. Highton, for Appellant. Leonard Reynolds, for Respondent.|
|Case Date:||May 26, 1882|
|Court:||Supreme Court of California|
Appeal from an order refusing defendant a new trial in the Third District Court of the City and County of San Francisco. McKee, J.
The letter of instructions was not, like a bill of lading or an invoice, one of the usual documents accompanying a consignment of goods, and, therefore, its existence or contents not having been communicated to Forbes Bros. prior to the loan, it did not characterize the transaction or form part of the res gestoe, and on this ground was improperly admitted in evidence.
The letter of instructions on the claim of the respondent not having been brought to the knowledge of Forbes Bros., and the California Type Foundry Company asserting its ownership and having possession of the presses, the evidence showed that Forbes Bros. made all the inquiries they were called upon to prosecute.
The evidence showed that the California Type Foundry Company had ostensible authority to deal with the four presses as its own, and that it had been allowed by the respondent to assume the apparent ownership of the property for the purpose of making a transfer of it, and, therefore, the respondent couldnot set up its own title, if it had any, to defeat the pledge made by the California Type Foundry Company to Forbes Bros., who received the property in good faith, in the ordinary course of business, for value, and relying upon the representations and the actual possession of the company.
The leading case in this State, prior to the adoption of the Codes, was that of Wright v. Solomon , 19 Cal. 68, 70-77. This case, however, even if it were still an authority, would be inapplicable to this record, because the business of the California Type Foundry Company was not that of a factor or agent, and, the fact of agency in this particular instance not having been disclosed, it could not be reasonably claimed that Forbes Bros. dealt with the company as an agent or were charged with notice of the conditions under which the consignment was received.
The next case in this State, although not directly in point, weakened the force of Wright v. Solomon. (Goldstein v. Hort , 30 Cal. 374-76.)
The next step was decisive. Here, as in England,...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP