Drakely v. Gregg
| Decision Date | 01 December 1868 |
| Citation | 19 L.Ed. 409,75 U.S. 242,8 Wall. 242 |
| Parties | DRAKELY v. GREGG |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
243]
IN error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.
The controversy grew out of the last of three shipments of pork products, in January, 1865, to Drakely & Fenton, of Baltimore, by McCabe & Co., of Chicago. Drakely & Fenton had agreed to receive, on consignment, from McCabe & Co., hams, shoulders, prime and new pork; to sell the property at the highest market price, and to advance, on each shipment, at certain specified rates. In pursuance of this understanding, McCabe & Co. made two shipments, one of barrelled meat, and the other of shoulders, in tierces, on which they drew drafts in favor of Gregg & Hughes to the amount of $59,000 which were paid.
Soon after this the hams were sent. On the day succeeding their shipment, the Baltimore firm received a telegram, which was followed by a letter from Gregg & Hughes, of Chicago, claiming title to all the property, and requesting that the bills of lading for the hams might not be negotiated until the whole matter was properly adjusted; and, until then, Drakely & Fenton did not know that Gregg & Hughes had any interest in the property consigned to them. It seemed, from Gregg & Hughes's letter, that they had furnished McCabe & Co. with money to cut and pack hogs, and had taken in security, the warehouse receipts on all the pork products, which afterwards came into the possession of Drakely & Fenton. The intervention of Gregg & Hughes resulted in nothing more being paid to McCabe & Co., and in a final direction from McCabe & Co. to Drakely & Fenton, to place the proceeds of all the pork products consigned to them, to the credit of Gregg & Hughes.
It appeared, from the conduct of the parties, that there was no apprehension, until long after Gregg & Hughes had intervened, that the portion of these products, covered by the two first shipments, would not bring, when sold, enough to reimburse Drakely & Fenton for what they had advanced on them. But it so happened, in the vicissitudes of trade, that the hog market greatly declined, and that the proceeds of the pork and shoulders were inadequate to repay the money which was advanced upon them. The hams having sold for a large sum over charges and advancements, Drakely & Fenton insisted that they were entitled to a lien on the proceeds, for their general balance arising out of the deficiency on the sale of the pork and shoulders, which right was denied by Gregg & Hughes, and hence this litigation.
The question depended, of course, upon the fact, whether the intervention of Gregg & Hughes had changed the relation of principal and factor, which had previously existed between McCabe & Co. and Drakely & Fenton, and separated the consignment of hams from the preceding consignments. This, of course, was a question depending on the terms on which the hams had been received.
The evidence, on this point, consisted of a long correspondence, and of some oral testimony. The transactions originated with a letter from McCabe & Co. to the Baltimore house, as follows:
CHICAGO, January 6th, 1865.
MESSRS. DRAKELY & FENTON, BALTIMORE.
R. McCABE & CO.
The property here referred to, pork, shoulders, and hams was, all of it, confessedly, at the date of the letter, the property of Gregg & Hughes, by virtue of the warehouse receipts already mentioned. On the 10th January, Drakely & Fenton reply, as follows:
BALTIMORE, January 10th, 1865.
MESSRS. R. McCABE & CO., CHICAGO.
DRAKELY & FENTON.
The present litigation had reference, mainly, to 983 of the 1000 tierces of hams, the first-mentioned article in both of the foregoing letters.
Satisfied, apparently, with the terms of Drakely & Fenton, McCabe & Co. write, as follows:
CHICAGO, January 13th, 1865.
MESSRS. DRAKELY & FENTON, BALTIMORE.
R. McCABE & CO.
On the 16th of January, McCabe & Co. forwarded the pork described in letters of that date, of which the following is an extract:
- On the 17th January, McCabe & Co. write again to Drakely & Fenton, informing them of a shipment of 'six hundred and three tierces of shoulders,' and saying: 'I will ship the hams next week, if I can get cars.'
The bill of lading for the nine hundred and eighty-three tierces of hams in dated January 23d, 1865, which was Tuesday; but the hams appear to have been forwarded, in fact, on Sunday; and on Monday, 22d, Gregg & Hughes telegraphed Drakely & Fenton, as follows:
CHICAGO, January 22d, 1865.
Don't negotiate bill lading for nine hundred and eighty-three tierces of hams, shipped yesterday by McCabe & Co., consigned to you; hams belong to us. Particulars by mail. Answer.
GREGG & HUGHES.
This was the first intimation that Drakely & Fenton had, of Gregg & Hughes's interest in the property mentioned in the original letter of McCabe & Co. of January 6th, or any part of it. The letter promised by the telegram, and of the same date, followed in course. It was thus:
CHICAGO, January 22d, 1865.
MESSRS. DRAKELY & FENTON, BALTIMORE.
GENTLEMEN: We have been advancing large sums of money, during the past winter, to R. McCabe & Co., of this city, to pack pork with, and have been getting from them their warehouse receipts, with policy of insurance, covering the same security. We have been shipping the property to New York on B. L. in our name, where it was held for our account. Some few days ago, Col. McCabe, of the firm named, handed us a letter from your house, authorizing them to make sight drafts on you, on the basis of certain figures therein named, the drafts to be accompanied by B. L. These shipments they made without our knowledge in their own name, and gave us only a portion of the proceeds of the drafts made on you, payable to our order, viz., one for $41,000, and another for $18,000. TO THIS WE DID NOT MAKE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION, as they had been cutting a few hogs with money obtained from another source, and we presumed they wanted to close that account. There was still a considerable quantity of lard and hams remaining here, which we supposed was sufficient to secure us for our advances here, in addition to what we had in New York. Subsequently, they shipped the lard to you, on their own account, for which we got nothing yet. Col. McCabe, however, told us that we should have the benefit of anything that might be in your hands, from the sale of the property shipped you on B. L. in the name of McCabe & Co., the lard included, after your advances and charges were paid. We were satisfied with that arrangement, and on Friday last proposed that we would ship to you, in a few days, the hams that were still here, there being then about a thousand tierces in which we were interested, and we would not draw anything upon them until they were sold. Col. McCabe told us, at that time, he would leave on Saturday morning for New York, and we were to attend to the shipping of the hams ourself. To our surprise, this morning (Monday), we found that McCabe did not go to New York, as contemplated, but remained here and shipped the hams himself to your house, on yesterday (Sunday), and this morning left for your city himself. Now, the last move, to us, does not look right, and we are not satisfied with it. We, consequently, write to you all the facts in connection with our dealings with McCabe & Co., and will deem it an especial favor, if you will hold off making further advances to them, over and above the $41,000 and $18,000 sight drafts drawn in our favor. The property shipped you is virtually and legally ours, and we hold McCabe's warehouse receipts for it.. If you will delay the payment of anything further to McCabe & Co. until we can advise with them, and direct the property to be placed with you for our account, we will feel very grateful to you; and if they refuse to comply with our request, we can then take steps to make them surrender the property or reimburse us for our advances. . . .
We do not wish your interests in the matter to be impaired in the least; we want you to sell all the property consigned to you; but we do not want the proceeds paid over to McCabe & Co., until we are secured, nor do we want any sale for the future made, unless the sales are placed to our credit. McCabe & Co. may have the very best intentions in this matter, and we hope they have, but the course pursued is not exactly as we would have done, and we think very strange of McCabe & Co., for having moved property belonging to us without our consent. We desire that they shall have the benefit of everything the pork, lard shoulders, and hams bring over the amount we have in them. .....
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Indem. Co. v. J.R. Crowe Coal & Mining Co.
... ... 809; Brown v ... McGran, 14 Pet. 477, 493, 10 L.Ed. 550; Goddard v ... Foster, 17 Wall. 123, 142, 21 L.Ed. 589; Drakeley v ... Gregg, 8 Wall. 242, 268, 19 L.Ed. 409; Barreda v ... Silsbee, 21 How. 146, 167, 16 L.Ed. 86; Turner v ... Yates, 16 How. 14, 23, 14 L.Ed. 824; ... ...
-
Galloway v. United States
...effect was the same—if the evidence so much as 'tended to prove the position' of the party, the case was for the jury. Drakely v. Gregg, 8 Wall. 242, 268, 19 L.Ed. 409; Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall. 197, 201, 19 L.Ed. 551; Barney v. Schmeider, 9 Wall. 248, 253, 19 L.Ed. 648. Cf. United States v......
-
Drainage Dist. No. 1 v. Rude
...written contract. Brown v. McGran, 14 Pet. 479, 494, 495 10 L. Ed. 550; Turner v. Yates, 16 How. 16, 23 14 L. Ed. 824; Drakeley v. Gregg, 8 Wall. 242 19 L. Ed. 409; Goddard v. Foster, 17 Wall. 123, 142 21 L. Ed. 589. Exceptional cases arise where the contract rests partly in correspondence ......
-
Ward County v. Warren
... ... jury. Stephens v. Brooks, 2 Bush, 137; Way v ... Illinois C. R. Co. 35 Iowa 585; Drakely v ... Gregg, 8 Wall. 242, 19 L. ed. 409; Henry v ... Rich, 64 N.C. 379; Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall ... 197, 19 L. ed. 551; Barney v ... ...