Daniel v. Swift

• Decision Date: 31 January 1875
• Citation: 54 Ga. 113
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: William A. Daniel, plaintiff in error. v. Swift, Murphy & Company, defendants in error.

54 Ga. 113

William A. Daniel, plaintiff in error. v. Swift, Murphy & Company, defendants in error.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

(Atlanta, January Term, 1875.)

Factors. Lien. Estoppel. Before Judge James Johnson. Talbot Superior Court. September Term, 1874.

Swift, Murphy & Company brought complaint against Daniel, on an account for $151 80. The defendant pleaded the general issue and set-off as follows:

                ------------------------------------------------------
                |Swift, Murphy & Company to William A. Daniel|. Dr.  |
                |--------------------------------------------|-------|
                |February 27, 1869. To six bales of cotton   |$699 50|
                |--------------------------------------------|-------|
                |Interest for six months                     |$726 02|
                |--------------------------------------------|-------|
                |Credit by cash                              |409 50 |
                |--------------------------------------------|-------|
                |                                            |$316 52|
                ------------------------------------------------------
                

The evidence presented the following facts: *One Perryman deposited with plaintiffs, as warehousemen and factors, six bales of cotton, upon which they made various advances to him. Subsequently he transferred the cotton receipts to defendant, who handed them to the plaintiffs, with instructions to sell the cotton on his account. Plaintiffs said nothing to him in reference to the advances. They sold the cotton, deducted the amount advanced by them, andpaid the balance, $409 50, to defendant. The defendant claimed that the entire proceeds of the cotton, less commissions, should be paid to him. This constituted the basis of his claim of set-off.

The defendant requested the court to charge the jury, that if, at the time "the defendant deposited the receipts with the plaintiffs with instructions to sell the cotton on his account, the plaintiffs made no claim for advances made by them to Perryman, then the plaintiffs are bound to the defendant for the proceeds of the sale of the cotton, notwithstanding advances they may have made to Perryman."

The court refused thus to instruct the jury, and charged to the contrary. To this the defendant excepted.

The jury found for the plaintiffs. Error is assigned on the above grounds of exception.

Willis & Willis; Blandford and Garrard, for plaintiff in error.

E. H. Worrill, for defendants.

TRIPPE, Judge.

The mere omission of Swift, Murphy & Company to inform Daniel that they had made advances to Perryman, on the cotton,...