1. Chitty on Commercial Law, vol. 3. 104. Lord Eldon, 9 Vesey, 250. Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. Rep. l7. Long v. Colburn, ibid. 97. Northampton Bank v. Pepoon, ibid. 238. Ewing v. Tees, 1 Binney, 450.
2.Whitehead v. Tuckett, 15 East, 400. Hooe v. Oxley, 1 Wash. 19. Long v. Colburn, ub. sup.
3.Judson v. Sturges, 5 Day, 556.
4. Laws of N.Y. sess. 10. ch. 44. sec. 10.
5. Co. Litt. 52. a. Horsley v. Rush, cited in 7 Term.Rep. 209. Cooper v. Rankin, 5 Binney, 613. Plummer v. Russel, 2 Gibb. 174. Sedgwick, J. 5 Mass. Rep. 40. Shamburger v. Kennedy, 1 Badg. & Dev. 1. Mellen, Ch. J. in 2 Greenleaf, 260.
6.Hazard v. Treadwell, 1 Str. 506. Rusby v. Scarlett, 5 Esp. Rep. 76.
7.Neal v. Irving, 1 Esp. Rep. 61. Hooe v. Oxley, 1 Wash. Rep. 16.
8. Dig. 17. 1. 6. 2. Ibid. 50. 17. 60.
9. Emerigon, Traité des Assurances, tom. 1. 144. Nickson v. Brohan, 10 Mod. 109. Williams v. Mitchell, 17 Mass. Rep. 98. Bryan v. Jackson, 4 Conn. Rep. 288.
10.Towle v. Stevenson, 1 Johns. Cas. 110. Cairns & Lord v. Bleecker, 12 Johns. Rep. 300. Erick v. Johnson, 6 Mass. Rep. 193. Frothingham v. Haley, 3 Mass. Rep. 70. Clement v. Jones, 12 Mass. Rep. 60.
11. Dig. 3. 5. 45. Ibid. 3. 5. 10. 1.
12. Lord Kenyon, 3 Term Rep. 310.
13.Exall v. Partridge, 8 Term Rep. 303.
14. 8 Term Rep. 614.
15. Inst. 3. 27. 8. Ferriere, sur Inst. h. t. Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, No. 94. and n. 96.
16. Valin's Com. sur l'ord. de la Mer. tom. 2. p. 32, 33.
17. Dig. 17. 1. 33.
18. Dig. 17. 1. 36. Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, 95. 1 Livermore on the Law of Principal and Agent, p. 100, 101.
19. Sir Thomas Clarke, in Alexander v. Alexander, 2 Vesey, 644. Campbell v. Leach, Amb. 740. Sugden on Powers, p. 545.
20.Roe v. Prideaux, 10 East, 158.
21. Dig 17. 1. 5. 2. Pothier. Contrat de Mandat, No. 97. Grotius, Jure B. & P. b. 2. c. 16. s. 1 says, that the famous question stated by Aulus Gellius whether an order or commission might be executed by a method equally or more advantageous than the one prescribed, might easily be answered by considering whether what was prescribed was under any precise form, or only with some general view that might be effected as well in some other way. If the latter did not clearly appear, we ought to follow the order with punctuality and precision, and not interpose our own judgment when it had not been required.
22.Munn v. Commission Company, 15 Johns. Rep. 44. Beals v. Allen, 18 Johns. Rep. 363. Thompson v. Stewart, 3 Conn. Rep. 172. Andrews v. Kneeland, 6 Cowen, 324. Buller, J. 3 Term Rep. 762. East India Company v. Hensley, 1 Esp. Rep. 131. Allen v. Ogden, Wharton's Dig. tit. Agent and Factor, A. 1. Blane v. Proudfit, 3 Call. Rep. 207.
23.Fenn v. Harrison, 3 Term Rep. 757.
24. 2 Johns. Rep. 48.
25. Ashhurst, J. in 3 Term Rep 757. Bailey, J. in 15 East, 45.
26.Pickering v. Busk, 15 East, 38.
27. Lord Ellenborough. 15 East. supra.
28.Van Allen v. Vanderpool, 6 Johns. Rep. 69. Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. Rep. 36. James & Shoemaker v. McCredie, 1 Bay's S. C. Rep. 294. Emery v. Gerbier, and other cases cited in Wharton's Dig. of Penn. Rep. tit. Agent and Factor, art. 2. Burrill v. Phillips, 1 Gallison, 360. Willes, Ch. J. in Scott v. Surman, Wi1les' Rep. 400. Leverick v. Meigs, 1 Cowen. 645. Greenly v. Bartlett, 1 Greenleaf, 172.
29.Wiltshire v. Sims, 1 Campb. N. P. Rep. 258.
30.Guy v. Oakley, 13 Johns. Rep. 332.
31.Messier v. Amery, 1 Yeates' Rep. 540. Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. Rep. 36.
32.Kip v. Bank of N.Y. 10 Johns. Rep 63. Garrett v. Cullam, cited in Scott v. Surman, Willes' Rep 405, and also by Chambre, J. in 3 Bos. & Pul. 490.
33.Girard.v. Taggart, 5 Serg. & Rawl. 19.
34. 1 Term Rep. 112.
35. 1 Cowen, 645.
36. Chambre, J. 3 Bos. & Pul., 489.
37.Gall v. Comber, 7 Taunton, 558. Peele v. Northcoke, ibid. 478.
38.Guerreiro v. Peile, 3 Barn. & Ald. 616.
39.Martini v. Coles, 1 Maule. & Selw. 140. Shipley v. Kymer, ibid. 484.
40.Patterson v. Tash, 2 Str. 1178. Daubigny v. Duval, 5 Term Rep. 604. De Bouchout v. Goldsmid. 5 Vesey, 211. McCombie v. Davies, 7 East, 5. Martini v. Coles, 1 Maule. & Selw. 140. Fielding v. Kymer, 2 Brod. & Bing. 639. Kinder v. Shaw, 2 Mass. Rep. 393. Van Amringe v. Peabody, 1 Mason, 440. Bowie v. Napier, 1 McCord, 1.
41.Collins v. Martin, 1 Bos. & Pull. 648. Treuttel v. Barandon, 3 Taunton, 100. Goldsmyd v. Garden, in Chancery, and cited in Collins v. Martin.
42.McCombie v. Davies, 7 East, 5. Urquhart v. Mulver, 4 Johns Rep. 103.
43.Laussatt v. Lippincott, 6 Serg. & Rawle, 386.
44. 1 Maule & Selw. 140.
45. 2 Starkie, 21.
46.Queiroz v. Trueman, 3 Barn. & Cress. 342.
47. The rule that a factor cannot pledge the goods consigned to him for sale, even for bona fide advances, in the regular course of commercial dealing, originated in the case of Patterson v. Tash, in 2 Str. 1178. which was a nisi prises decision of Ch. J. Lee; though it has been suggested that the report of that case was inaccurate. In the year 1823, the merits of that rule were discussed in the British Parliament, and a statute passed in July of that year, for the better protection of the property of merchants and others, in their dealings with factors and agents by which a factor was authorized to pledge, to a certain extent, the goods of his principal. A great deal may be properly said against the principle of the rule; and with the exception of England, it is contrary to the policy of all the commercial nations of Europe. On the European continent, possession constitutes title to moveable property, so far as to secure bona fide purchasers, and persons making advances of money or credit on the pledge of property by the lawful possessor. The late Ch. Justice of Pennsylvania, in Laussatt v. Lippincott, 6 Serg. & Rawl. 386, while he admitted the establishment of the rule that a factor cannot pledge, and that it advanced the commercial credit of the country, declared it to be an extremely hard rule. He said it would seem reasonable, that the loss should fall on him who put it in the power of the factor to deceive innocent persons who dealt with him bona fide; and that there was some inconsistency in the law, which declares that a factor cannot pledge the goods of his principal, and yet permits a purchaser who buys the goods, supposing them to be the property of the factor, to set off a debt due from the factor to himself; for the principle of caveat emptor, which avoids the pledge, would forbid the setoff. An effort was made in this state in the winter of 1825, to relax the rule, to the extent, at least, of the British statute; and though the application was enforced by a memorial from the New York Chamber of Commerce, and by the strong recommendation of Governor Clinton in his message, it failed of success. There may be something in the commercial policy of the rule alluded to by the English judges; but it would seem to be a conclusion of superior justice and wisdom, that a factor or commercial agent, clothed by his principal with the apparent symbols of ownership of property, should be deemed the true owner in respect to third persons,
dealing with him fairly in the course of business, as purchasers or mortgagees, and under an ignorance of his real character.
48. Emerigon, Traité des Assurances, tom. 2, 465. Lord Erskine, 12 Vesey, 352. Davis v. McArthur, 4 Greenleaf, 82, note.
49.Thomas v. Bishop, 2 Str. 955. Leadbitter v. Far row, 5 Maul. & Selw. 945. Dusenbury v. Ellis, 3 Johns. Cas. 70. Parker, Ch. J. Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. Rep. 29 and Hastings v. Lovering, 2 Pickering, 221. Hampton v. Speckengale, 9 Serg. & Rawl. 212
50.Owen v. Gooch, 2 Esp. Rep. 567. Rathbone v. Budlong, 15 Johns. Rep. l. Goodenow v. Tyler, 7 Mass. Rep. 36. Greely v. Bartlett, 1 Greenleaf, 172. Corlies v. Cumming, 6 Cowen, 181.
51.Mauri v. Hefferman, 13 Johns. Rep. 58.
52.Upton v. Gray, 2 Greenleaf, 373.
53.Combes' case, 9 Co. 76. Frontin v. Small, 2 Lord Raym. 1418. Wilks v. Back, 2 East, 142. Bogart v. De Bussy, 6 Johns. Rep, 94. Fowler v. Shearer, 7 Mass. Rep. 14. 19. Stinchfield v. Little, 1 Greenleaf, 231. Hopkins v. Mehatty, 11 Serg. & Rawl. 126.
54.Appleton v. Binks, 5 East, 148. Forster v. Fuller, 6 Mass. Rep. 58. Duvall v. Craig, 2 Wheaton, 56. Tippets v. Walker, 4 Mass. Rep. 595. White v. Skinner, 13 Johns. Rep. 307.
55.Long v. Colburn, 11 Mass. Rep. 97. Harper v. Little, 2 Greenleaf, 14.
56.Lisset v. Reave, 2 Atk. 394.
57.Rabone v. Williams, cited in 7 Term Rep. 360. note. George v. Clagett. 7 Term Rep. 359. Gordon v. Church, 2 Caines, 299. Chambre, J in 3 Bos. & Pull. 490.
58.Macbeath v. Haldimand, 1 Term Rep. 172. Unwin v. Wolseley, ibid. 674. Brown v. Austin, 1 Mass. Rep. 208. Dawes v. Jackson, 9 Mass. Rep. 490. Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch, 345. Walker v. Swartwout, 12 Johns. Rep. 444. Rathbone v. Budlong, 15 Johns. Rep, 1. Adams v. Whittlesey, 3 Conn. Rep. 560. Stinchfield v. Little, 1 Greenleaf, 231.
59. 12 Johns. Rep. 385. 15 Johns. Rep. 1
60.Combe's case, 9 Co. 75. Ingram v. Ingram, 2 Atk. 88. Attorney General v. Beveyman, cited in 2 Vesey, 643. Solly v. Rathbone, 2 Maule & Selw. 298. Cochran v. Irlam, ibid. 303. Schmaling v. Thomlinson, 6 Taunton, 147. Coles v. Trecothick, 9 Vesey, 234, 251.
61.Grindley v. Barker, 1 Bos. & Pull. 229. Town v. Jaquith, 6 Mass. Rep. 46. Green v. Miller, 6 Johns. Rep. 39. Baltimore Turnpike, 5 Binney, 481. Patterson v. Leavitt, 4 Conn. Rep. 50.
62. Lord Mansfield, in Green v. Farmer, 4 Burr. 2221.
63. Heath, J. 3 Bos. & Pull. 494.
64.Naylor v. Mangles, 1 Esp. Rep. 109. York v. Grenaugh, 1 Salk. 388. 2 Lord Raym. 866. S. C. Chambre, J. 3 Bos. & Pull. 55. Rushforth v. Hadfield, 7 East, 224. 21 Hen. VI. 55. Keilw. 50. Popham, Ch. J. Yelv. 67.
65.Lane v. Cotton, 12. Mod. 484. 1 Lord Raym. 646.
66. Hob. 42. Yelv. 67. Green v. Farmer, 4 Burr. 2214. Close v. Waterhouse, 6 East, 523, in notis.
67.Blake v. Nicholson, 3 Maule & Selw. 168. Chase v. Westmore, 5 Maule & Selw. 180. Crawshay v. Homfray, 4 Barn. & Ald. 50.
68.Hartford v. Jones, 2 Salk. 654. 1 Lord Raym. 393. S. C. Hamilton v. Davis, 5 Burr. 2732. Baring v. Day, 8 East, 57.
69. Storv, J. 2 Mason 88.
70.Nicholson v. Chapman, 2 H. Blacks. 254.
71. Laws of N.Y sess. 36. ch. 21.
72.Rushforth v. Hadfield, 6 East, 519. S. C. 7 East, 224.
73. Rooke, J. 3 Bos. & Pull. 50.
74. 3 Bos. & Pull. 42.
75. 6 Term Rep. 14.
76. 7 East, 224.
77. 5 Barn. & Ald. 350.
78.Houghton v. Matthews, 3 Bos. & Pull. 458.
79.Kinlock v. Craig, 3 7 Term. Rep. 119. 783.
80.Lempriere v. Pasley, 2 Term. Rep. 485. Madden v. Kempster, 1 Campb. N. P. Rep. 12.
81. 1 Mason's Rep. 191.
82. 16 Vesey, 275. Mr. Metcalf. in his neat and accurate digest of the cases on the doctrine of lien, contained in a note to his edition of Yelverton's Rep. 67. a. shows, by cases as ancient as the Year Books, 5 Edw. IV. 2. p1. 20. and 17 Edw IV. 1. that the lien is extinguished by a postponement of credit to a future day.
83.Walker v. Birch, 6 Term Rep. 258.
84.Daubigny v. Duvall, 6 Term Rep. 604. Hiscox v. Greenwood, 4 Esp. 174. McCombie v. Davies, 7 East, 5.
85.Jones v. Pearle, Str. 556. Sweet v. Pym, 1 East. 4.
86.McCombie v. Davies, 7 East, 5. Urquhart v. Mulver, 4 Johns. Rep. 103.
87.Blake v. Nicholson, 3 Maul. & Selw. 167. Wilde, J. in Parks v. Hall, 2 Pickering, 213.
88.Kruger v. Wilcox, Amb. 252. Lord Kenyon, in 6 Term. Rep. 262. Chambre, J. 3 Bos. & Pull. 489.
89.Drinkwater v. Goodwin, Cowp. 251. Chambre, J. 3 Bos. & Pull, 489. Hudson v. Granger, 5 Barn. &.Ald. 27.
90. Lord Mansfield, Doug. 104. Ex parte Sterling, 16 Vesey, 258. Cowell v. Simpson, ibid. 275. Ex parte Nesbitt, 2 Sch. & Lef. 279.
91. Sir Thomas Plumer, 2 J. & Walk. 218.
92.Vaughan v. Davies, 2 H. Blacks. 440.
93.Porter v. Lane, 8 Johnson's Rep. 357. Mohawk Bank v. Burrows, 6 Johns. Ch. Rep. 317.
94.Savill v. Barchard, 4 Esp. Rep. 53
95.Davis v. Bowsher, 5 Term Rep. 488. Jourdaine v. Lefreve, 1 Esp. Rep. 66.
96.Gordin v. London Assurance Company, 1 Burr. 469. Whitehead. v. Vaughan, Cooke's B. L. 316.
97. Maanss v. Henderson, 1 East, 385.
98. Yelv. 66.
99.Waldbroke v. Griffin, 2 Rol. Abr. 85. A. pl. 5. Moore, 876. Jones v. Pearle, 1 Str. 556. Pothonier v. Dawson, 1 Holt's N. P. Rep. 383.
100. Dig. 17. 1. 27. 3. Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, No. 101.
101. Dig. 17. 1. 14. and 17. 2. 40.
102. Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, No. 102. Co. Litt. 112. b. 181. b.
103.Vinyor's case, 8 Co. 81. b
104.Walsh v. Whitcomb, 2 Esp. Rep. 565. Lord Eldon, in Bromley v.Holland, 7 Vesey, 28.
105. Pothier, Traité des Oblig. No. 80. Buller, J. in Salter v. Field, 5Term Rep. 211. Bowerbank v. Morris, Wallace's Rep. 126. Spencer &White v. Wilson, 4 Munf. 130. Mellen, Ch. J. in Harper v. Little, 2 Greenleaf, 14.
106. Dig. 17. 1. 15.
107.Harrison's case, 12 Mod. 346. Pothier, Contrat de Mandat, No. 121.
108.Minett v. Forrester, 4 Taunton, 541. Parker v. Smith, 16 East, 382.
109.Dixon v. Ewart, 3 Merivale, 322.
110.Alley v. Holson, 4 Campb. 525.
111.White v. Gifford, 1 Rol. Abr. 331. tit. Authoritie, E. pl, 4. Anon. Wm. Jones, 388. Charnley v. Winstanley, 5 East, 266.
112. Anon. 1 Salk. 117. 399.
113.Huddleston's case, cited in 2 Vesey, 34. 1 Swanston, 515. n. Sayer v. Bennett, 2 Cox's Cases, 107. Waters v. Taylor, 2 Ves. & Bea. 301. The principle in the Roman law was, that no valid transaction whatever, was destroyed by subsequent lunacy. Neque testamentum recte factum, neque ullum aliud negotium recte gestum, postea furor interveniens perimit. Inst. 2. 12. 1.
114. Litt sec. 66. Co. Litt. ibid. Moore, 61. pl. 172. Mitchell v. Eades, Prec. in Ch. 125.
115. Inst. 3.27. 10. Dig. 17. 1. 26. Ibid. 46. 3. 32. Pothier Traité des Oblig. n. 81. Pothier, Traité du Contrat de Charge, part 1. ch. 6. sec 168. Emerigon, Traité des Assurances, tom. 2. 120.
116.The King v. The Corporation of Bedford Level, 6 East. 356. Watson v. King, 4 Campb. N. P. Rep. 272. Harper v. Little, 2 Greenleaf, 14. Shipman v. Thompson, Willes' Rep. 103. note. Wynne v. Thomas, ibid. 563. Bergen v. Bennett, 1 Caines' Cas. in Error, 1. Hunt v. Ennis, 2 Mason, 244.
117.Oades v. Woodward, 1 Salk. 87. Fuller v. Jocelyn. 2 Str. 882. Hunt v. Ennis, 2 Mason, 244. The law of principal and agent has been extensively considered, and the judicial decisions at Westminster Hall digested in several English works; but the Treatise of Mr. Livermore on the Law of Principal and Agent published in two volumes at Baltimore, in 1819, is a work of superior industry and learning. He has illustrated every part of the subject by references to the civil law, and to the Commentators upon that law, and he has incorporated into the work the leading decisions in our American courts.
