Hall v. Cordell

• Decision Date: 07 December 1891
• Citation: 12 S.Ct. 154,142 U.S. 116,35 L.Ed. 956
• Parties: HALL et al. v. CORDELL et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

142 U.S. 116

12 S.Ct. 154

35 L.Ed. 956

HALL et al. v. CORDELL et al.

December 7, 1891.

The facts fully appear in the following statement by Mr. Justice HARLAN:

This is an action of assumpsit. It is based upon an alleged verbal agreement made on or about April 1, 1886, at Marshall, Mo., between the defendants in error, plaintiffs below, doing business at that place as bankers, under the name of Cordell & Dunnica, and the plaintiffs in error, doing business at the Union Stock-Yards, Chicago, Ill., under the name of Hall Bros. & Co. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for $5,785.79.

The alleged agreement was, in substance, that Hall Bros. & Co. would accept and pay, or pay on presentation, all drafts made upon them by one George Farlow, in favor of Cordell & Dunnica, for the cost of any live-stock bought by Farlow and shipped by him from Missouri to Hall Bros. & Co. at the Union Stock-Yards at Chicago.

There was proof before the jury tending to show that, on or about July 13, 1886, Farlow shipped from Missouri 9 car-loads of cattle and 1 car-load of hogs, consigned to Hall Bros. & Co. at the Union Stock-Yards, Chicago; that such cattle and hogs were received by the consignees, and by them were sold for account of Farlow; that, out of the proceeds, they retained the amount of the freight on the shipment, the expenses of feeding the stock on the way and at the stock-yards, the charges at the yards and of the persons who came to Chicago with the stock, the commissions of the consignees on the sale, the amount Farlow owed them for moneys paid on other drafts over and above the het proceeds of live-stock received and sold for him on the market, and $2,000 due from Farlow to Hall Bros. & Co. on certain past-due promissory notes given for money loaned to him; that, at the time of the above shipment, Farlow, at Marshall, Mo., the place of agreement, made his draft, of date July 13, 1886, upon Hall Bros. & Co., at the Union Stock-Yards, Chicago, in favor of Cordell & Dunnica, for $11,274, the draft stating that it was for the 9 car-loads of cattle and 1 car-load of hogs; that this draft was discounted by cordell & Dunnica, and the proceeds placed to Farlow's credit on their books; that the proceeds were paid out by the plaintiffs on his checks in favor of the parties from whom he purchased the stock mentioned in the draft, and for the expenses incurred in the shipment; that the draft covered only the cost of the stock to Farlow; that, upon its presentation to Hall Bros. & Co., they refused to pay it, and the same was protested for non-payment; and that subsequently Cordell & Dunnica received from Hall Bros. & Co. only the sum of $5,936.55, the balance of the proceeds of the sale of the above cattle and hogs, consigned to them as stated, after deducting the amounts retained by the consignees out of such proceeds on the several accounts above mentioned.

J. A. Sleeper, for plaintiff in error.

Ashley M. Gould, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

There was evidence on behalf of the defendants tending to show that no such agreement was made as that alleged. But the issues of fact were fairly submitted to the jury, and we must assume, on this writ of error, that the jury found from the evidence that the alleged agreement was made between the parties.

Our examination must be restricted to the questions of law involved in the rulings of the court below. And the only one which, in our judgment, it is necessary to notice, is that arising upon the instructions asked by the defendant, and which the court refused to give, to the effect that the agreement in question, having been made in Missouri, and not having been reduced to writing, was invalid under the statutes of that state, and could not be recognized in Illinois as the basis of an action there against the defendants.

The statute of Missouri referred to is as follows: 'Sec. 533. No person within this state shall be charged as an acceptor of a bill of exchange, unless his acceptance shall be in writing, signed by himself or his lawful agent. Sec. 534. If such acceptance be written on a paper other than the bill, it shall not bind the acceptor, except in favor of a person to whom such acceptance shall have been shown, and who, upon the faith thereof, shall have received the bill for a valuable consideration. Sec. 535. An unconditional promise, in writing, to accept a bill before it is drawn, shall be deemed an actual acceptance in favor of every person to whom such written promise shall have been shown, and who upon the faith thereof shall have received the bill for a valuable consideration. Sec. 536. Every holder of a bill, presenting the same for acceptance, may require that the acceptance be written on the bill; and a refusal to comply with such request shall be deemed a refusal to accept, and the bill may be protested for...