Hamilton v. Ford

• Decision Date: 31 August 1852
• Docket Number: No. 35.,35.
• Citation: 12 Ga. 205
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Parties: Hardeman & Hamilton, plaintiffs in error. vs. Gary G. Ford, defendant.

12 Ga. 205

Hardeman & Hamilton, plaintiffs in error. vs. Gary G. Ford, defendant.

No. 35.

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

AUGUST TERM, 1852.

In Dooly Superior Court. Tried before Judge Powers. April Term, 1852.

This was an action to recover back money, advanced by the plaintiffs, Hardeman & Hamilton, as cotton factors, to Ford, the defendant.

Plaintiffs proved the advancement of the money as charged in their account, and that they had sold twenty-three bales ofcotton for defendant, at 7¹/₂ cents, which left a balance due them from defendant. They had sold the cotton in New York, March 13, 1848.

The defendant introduced Robert G. Ford, who testified that the cotton was stored with plaintiff's in July, 1847; on which they agreed to advance 9¹/₂ cents, but the next day said they could not advance more than 9 cents. Defendant replied, that he wanted no more advance than the cotton was worth, as he wanted no anteing back on Mm. Defendant wished his cotton shipped to Savannah—directed plaintiffs not to ship it to New York; that he did not want his cotton to go on the water; that he had once lost by it. Cotton was then worth 9 to 10 cents, but afterwards rose to 12¹/₂.

The plaintiffs on their part further proved that their account had been shown to defendant, and that he had promised to pay the balance.

The Court instructed the Jury, that if the cotton was shipped at the direction of defendant, then he was liable for the balance due, after deducting the amount of sales; but if, contrary to his direction, the plaintiffs had shipped the cotton, or if they had retained it an unreasonable length of time, and loss ensued, it was their loss and not the defendant's; that commission merchants and factors, if they transcended their instructions, were responsible for the consequences. That if the defendant, with a full knowledge of what had been done, subsequently promised to pay the balance apparently due, this amounted to a ratification on his part of the actions of his factors; but they must be satisfied that he made such promise, with a full knowledge of what had been done, or he would not be bound by it. To which charge of the Court plaintiffs excepted. The verdict was for defendant, and plaintiffs' counsel made a motion for a new trial, on the following grounds: First, because the verdict of the Jury was contrary to evidence, and without evidence to authorize it; second, because the verdict is contrary to law; and third, because said verdict is contrary to the charge of the Court. Which motion for anew trial was overruled by the Court, whereupon the counsel for plaintiff excepted.

S. & R. P. Hall, for plaintiffs in error.

Warren & Frank, Hill & Stubbs, for defendant.

By the Court.—Warner, J. delivering the opinion.

The motion for a new trial was properly overruled by the Court below, on the statement of facts contained in this record. The cotton was delivered to the plaintiffs in July, 1847, to be shipped to Savannah, but not to New York. The plaintiffs were specially directed by the defendant, not to send his cotton to New York; said "his cotton never should go on the water, as he had suffered once by his cotton going on the water." The plaintiff's shipped the cotton to New York, and it was sold in that market, on the 13th March, 1848, at 7¹/₂cents. Between the delivery of the cotton to the plaintiff's and the sale thereof, cotton sold for 12¹/₂ cents. The plaintiff...