Foerderer v. Moors
Decision Date | 28 December 1898 |
Docket Number | 24. |
Citation | 91 F. 476 |
Parties | FOERDERER v. MOORS et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
John G Johnson, for plaintiff in error.
Joseph De F. Junkin, for defendant in error.
Before ACHESON and DALLAS, Circuit Judges, and KIRKPATRICK, District judge.
Upon the application of Keen-Sutterle Company, general importer of skins, wools, etc., J. B. Moors & Co., plaintiffs below (the defendants in error), bankers in Boston, issued their letter of credit, dated November 7, 1895, addressed to Suffert, Von Laer & Co., London, authorizing them to draw on Morton, Rose & Co., bankers in London, at four months date, for any sum or sums not exceeding in all 15,000 lire sterling, for account of Keen-Sutterle Company, the 'drafts, with advice thereof to Messrs. Morton, Rose & Co., to be drawn in Europe and negotiated prior to May 1, 1896, for the invoice cost of merchandise to be shipped to the port of Boston, New York Philadelphia, or Wilmington, in the United States, or Montreal, Canada, and to be accompanied by consular invoice and bills of lading to our order; one copy to be sent us direct by vessel or mail.' Contemporaneously with the giving of this letter of credit, Keen-Sutterle Company entered into an agreement with J. B. Moors & Co., embodied in a letter from the former to the latter, dated November 7, 1895, and indorsed on a copy of the letter of credit, containing the following stipulation:
At the request and for the accommodation of Keen-Sutterle Company, Robert H. Foerderer, defendant below (the plaintiff in error), became the guarantor of performance by Keen-Sutterle Company of its agreement with J. B. Moors & Co. The guaranty was in the form of a letter attached to the agreement between Keen-Sutterle Company and J. B. Moors & Co., and bore even date therewith. The following is a copy of the guaranty.
'Boston, Nov. 7th, 1895.
'Robert H. Foerderer.'
From the record it appears that in July and August, 1895, Keen-Sutterle Company had ordered a quantity of wool from Suffert, Von Laer & Co. This wool was all put on board the ship Nahum Chapin, lying in Algoa Bay, South Africa, in the month of October, 1895, prior to the 15th of that month; and three different bills of lading therefor, each covering part of the wool, dated, respectively, October 5, 12, and 14, 1895, were issued to Reiners, Von Laer & Co. These bills of lading were indorsed by Reiners, Von Laer & Co., and sent to Suffert, Von Laer & Co., in London. The Nahum Chapin, laden with this wool, sailed from Algoa Bay on October 15, 1895, on a direct voyage to Philadelphia. Suffert, Von Laer & Co., acting under the recited letter of credit, drew three drafts on Morton, Rose & Co. for the invoice cost of this wool, each draft being accompanied by one of the said bills of lading, indorsed to the order of J. B. Moors & Co. The drafts respectively bore date November 11, 18, and 26, 1895, and matured March 14, March 21, and March 29, 1896. Together they amounted, in United States money, to $58,759.02. They were accepted by Morton, Rose & Co., who gave due notice thereof to J. B. Moors & Co., and forwarded to them the bills of lading. The Nahum Chapin, with the cargo of wool, arrived at Philadelphia on December 14, 1895. Before the arrival of the vessel, all the bills of lading had been received by J. B. Moors & Co., and by them had been delivered to Keen-Sutterle Company upon 'trust receipts.' Keen-Sutterle Company thus obtained possession of the wool, and sold it, appropriating the proceeds to itself. This company failed, and was put into the hands of a receiver on January 9, 1896.
This suit was brought by J. B. Moors & Co. against Robert H Foerderer upon his guaranty, to recover the loss sustained by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McLean v. Love
... ... Hidder v. Bishop, 5 R. I. 29; Montgomery v ... Martin, 21 S.E. 613; Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N ... Y. v. Van Dyke, 27 S.E. 709; Foerderer v ... Moors, 91 F. 476; Loos v. McCormick, 95 N.Y.S ... 1141; State Bank of Slayton v. Edwards, 171 N.W ... 677; Miller v. Lilly, 105 S.E. 826; ... ...
-
Mechanics & Metals Nat. Bank of City of New York v. Pingree
... ... Ford, 181 Iowa 319, ... 164 N.W. 754; Scandinavian American Bank v. Westby, ... 41 N.D. 276, 172 N.W. 666; Foerderer v. Moors, 91 F ... 476, 33 C. C. A. 641; Allen v. O'Donald, 23 F ... 573; Gotzian & Co. v. Heine, 87 Minn. 429, 92 N.W. 398.) ... ...
-
Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Washington & Berkeley Bridge Co.
... ... Cas. No. 14,681; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 ... Wall. 162, 20 L.Ed. 566; City of Lynchburg v. N. & W.R.R ... Co., 80 Va. 237, 56 Am.Rep. 592; Foerderer v ... Moors, 91 F. 476, 33 C.C.A. 641; City of St. Louis ... v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 564; American Manganese Co. v ... Manganese Co., 91 Va. 272, 21 ... ...
-
Baxter County Bank v. Ozark Insurance Co.
...582; 158 Pa. 392; 48 Ark. 442; 41 Mich. 227; 16 Ia. 85; 22 Ia. 362; 5 Pet. 389; 195 Ill. 451; 40 P. 472; 163 Ill. 467; 15 Ind.App. 575; 91 F. 476. HART, J., (after stating the facts). The judgment of T. M. Montgomery against the Ozark Insurance Company was regular on its face, and no eviden......