Holmes v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 17 November 1879 |
| Citation | 92 Pa. 57 |
| Parties | Holmes <I>versus</I> Bailey. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON and TRUNKEY, JJ. STERRETT and GREEN, JJ., absent
Error to the Court of Common Pleas, No. 1, of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1879, No. 70.
Thomas C. Lazear, for plaintiffs in error.—The bill of lading attached to the draft was not even endorsed, nor was there any writing on it which purported to be an assignment of its contents. That the draft, of itself, did not amount to an appropriation, so as to entitle the plaintiff to recover in this action, we refer to Hopkins v. Beebe, 2 Casey 85, in which it was said, that a bill of exchange does not, propria vigore, vest in the payee a title to the effects sent to meet it, or give the payee a lien upon such effects, so that he can demand them or their proceeds. To the same effect is Farmers' and Mechanics' Ins. Co. v. Simmons, 6 Casey 299; Mrs. Greenfield's Estate, 12 Harris 240; Lloyd v. McCaffrey, 10 Wright 410; First Nat. Bank of Mt. Joy v. Gish, 22 P. F. Smith 13.
But, again, it is also an undisputed fact in the case, that the draft amounted to much more than the proceeds of the cattle embraced in the bill of lading which accompanied it. It is submitted that the case in this respect, is analogous to that of a bank check for which the drawer has not provided sufficient funds to pay the whole amount.
A bank is not bound to pay a part of a check when it has not funds for the whole: 2 Pars. on Notes and Bills 78; In re Brown, 2 Story 502, 516.
William L. Chalfant, for defendant in error.—Holmes, Lafferty & Co. v. German Security Bank, 6 Norris 525, rules this case. The function of the draft, with the bill of lading attached, was to transfer the seventeen cattle embraced in the bill of lading, or the proceeds thereof, when they were sold, no difference whether the draft included other cattle in another bill of lading or not.
A general endorsement, without anything further, might have transferred to Stallings the proceeds of the draft itself, in which case the defence to Stallings that the draft was for more than the proceeds of the cattle transferred to Stallings by the bill of lading, might have been available. But the attachment of the bill of lading for the seventeen cattle to the draft qualified and limited the appropriation to the proceeds of the seventeen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russel v. Smith Grain Co.
... ... Mt. Pleasant Milling Co., 103 Ia. 518; ... Neill v. Rodgers Bros. Produce Company, 41 W.Va. 37; ... Hathoway v. Haynes, 124 Mass. 301; Holmes v ... Bayley, 92 Pa. 57; Holmes v. Bank, 96 Pa. 525; ... Coker v. First National Bank of Memphis, 112 Ga. 71; ... Ayres et al. v. Dorsey Produce ... ...
-
Franklin Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, Baltimore & Washington Railroad Co.
... ... bill, without assignment or indorsement, if such appears to ... have been the intention: Holmes v. Bailey, 92 Pa ... 57; Holmes v. Bank, 77 Pa. 525; Richardson & Co ... v. Nathan, 167 Pa. 513; Sloan v. Johnson, 20 ... Pa.Super. 643 ... ...
-
In re E. Reboulin Fils & Co., Inc.
...& Transp. Co., 69 N.Y. 373; Richardson & Co. v. Nathan, 167 Pa. 513, 31 A. 740; Holmes et al. v. German Security Bank, 87 Pa. 525; Holmes v. Bailey, 92 Pa. 57. Under evidence in this case the petitioners had property rights in these goods, at least up to and until the invoices and bills of ......
-
Clary v. Tyson
... ... bill of lading. 1 Benj. on Sales (4 Am. Ed.), sec. 577. This ... whether the bill of lading is indorsed or not. Holmes v ... Bailey, 92 Penn. 57; Hathaway v. Haynes, 124 ... Mass. 311; Shaw v. Bank, 101 U.S. 557. (3) As there ... was in the case no question of ... ...