In re Coe
Decision Date | 12 December 1910 |
Docket Number | 8. |
Citation | 183 F. 745 |
Parties | In re COE et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
White & Case (J. Du Pratt White and J. M. Hartfield, of counsel), for appellant.
Rounds Hatch, Dillingham & Debevoise (R. S. Rounds, of counsel), for appellee Sovereign Bank of Canada.
Benjamin F. Jones, for bankrupt Coe.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
We hand down with this an opinion in the matter of J. V. A. Cattus, a bankrupt, holding that under the trust receipts in common use the banker who advances the purchase price of the goods is the owner of them, and what is there said on this subject need not now be repeated. The course of dealing in this case was that the Sovereign Bank of Canada issued to Cadenas & Coe letters of credit under which their agents in South Africa were authorized to value on the National Bank of South Africa, correspondents of the Sovereign Bank, up to a certain amount for the price of ostrich feathers. Under this credit the South African bank discounted drafts drawn upon Cadenas & Coe by their South African agents for the price of the goods with bills of lading indorsed in blank attached, which drafts and bills of lading it forwarded to the agents of the Sovereign Bank in New York, which delivered the bills of lading to Cadenas & Coe against their acceptances of the drafts and trust receipts in the following form:
'Drawn against L/C 538-2050. 1-8 Due in London, Mar. 2, 07.
'Bailee Receipt.
'The Bank may at any time cancel this Bailment of Trust, and in such event, we hereby undertake and agree to return all unsold goods at once on demand, or to pay the value of the said goods at the Bank's option.
'Dated at New York the 30th day of November, A.D., 1906.
'Cadenas & Coe.' Cadenas & Coe collected the price of the feathers, deposited the same in their general account, applied it in their business, and then failed. The firm, as well as Edward P. Coe William H. Knox, the partners composing it, were all subsequently...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rochelle v. U.S.
...F. 935 (W.D.Pa., 1917) (partners liable as endorsers of the partnership's note); In re McCoy, 150 F. 106 (CA7, 1906) (same).10 In re Coe, 183 F. 745 (CA2, 1910) (partnership liable in tort for conversion); In re Jordan, 2 F. 319 (D.Maine, 1880) (trust Ex maleficio from knowing use of assets......
- In re A.E. Fountain, Inc., 182
-
Myers v. International Trust Co, 122
...of the offer; and that upon the confirmation of the composition they get what they 'bargained for,' and no more. And see, In re Coe (C. C. A.) 186 F. 745, 747; In re Adler (D. C.) 103 F. 444, 446; In re Lane (D. C.) 125 F. 772, Here the partnership, being proceeded against as a distinct leg......
-
Reynolds v. New York Trust Co.
...on Partnership (5th Ed.) 703; Loveland on Bankruptcy, 315, and cases cited: In re Parkers, 19 Q.B.Div. 84. In the Circuit Court of Appeals (183 F. 745) it was 'It makes no difference that the parties acted without evil intent, nor that the firm got the benefit of what they did. It remains a......