Texas State Gazette. (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 4, No. 39, Ed. 1, Saturday, May 14, 1853 Page: 4 of 8
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
W""""""""'
! iMBHJittte agBggawriiW'ijji '.?.! ittJMg
I pf WW tl"IWl .
SrJt i.'r&fXV4a-(:tj
JiiiartuJS3wetek.aaft
.
1
4
lr-..
lp
':.
1 r
I -V.'
.
m
WK
W:
Mv
fi..
. '
K-
'ttwmuwrtnaum
"1T
m
mikttK2
tftTrsf'
JiMMHRm
f MA$ SMS
iZITTE
: i.:
W"
fttfM
!S'I)BWOKnA8DI.i:a.ppoHqiH V&jJJLTON & Ukmslbsv AppeL
"Sfteirt- ' .-" iocs. From Calhoun County.
mipiiord Patricli & Co. df New York told to James iNicliolson of
SfrorVa bilfqf gpodsaiiipuutlng to $2200 on a credit of twelve
..months and shinned them ou the 12th..of. April 1851 to tlio Care of
or-Kin - TTnitftlftv. Gbmmlsaion Merchants nt Port Lavaca with. in
Ttructibns to forWard'thcm to their destination lnlton &: llehsley
jrcceTv'c4 the goods .in their warehouse and wrote to Nicholson .advi-
rsfnMtini oPlutnVarrivul asking orders and stating that they would
''tf'ltotirdnto'Uie good Uiltil he should order ihcni uWay.u In May
following Nicholson being in falling circumstances arid Unable to pay
assigncd'the Bill of Lading to Chandler to obtain timo upon and to
WSure 'a'tfebt of $700 which the latter held for collection infavoi
:iqf-Peci;'Sims & Co. of Now Orleans. It Was agreed between Chntul-
iSaiidiiNicholsqu (hat thegqods should be transported to Bastrop and
" -vr.i ' - . . .. . f . t li Hi.- .ft. ilm ulna
delivered tiivo tne. custouy oi uio agent oi v""""'1"1;11-' ""'" .
when it jNicnoisou paiu
Suns & Co.
Chandler was
.tn tmn iiulcrmont for his dabt mid sol the iroods lor its payment. n
.V f1.W .(.-.-- - tj .....
aH'fttftiiv them for the neriod of four mouths
orjfcu'Fed in a manner agreed upon the debt of Peel
5liie.'n:oods were to bo returned to Nicholson otherwise
.
VJuho following Nicholson informed Chandler that he might semi tor
'Sntftakc charge of t(e goods which remained in the care of FUlion
Sc-lienslby nt Port .Lavaca and make what disposition lie pleased of
iinm-i .Rpniirn tlm tinvment of his debt. Chandler sent for ana tie
landed tliegdodSOf Fulton & ElcUslcy ofTcringto pay their charges
Svh'ich they refused to recede or to deliver the goods Without an or-
depfromthoassiguors Patrick & Co Thc.latter afterwards ratified
nanthadppted their act refusing (o deliver the goods;
l"'s 'Chandler brought suit ngaitlst Fultoivfc Hensley. They answered
ifalle'ni"' the purchase of thq goods by Nicholson qf Patrick & Co. on
J$ime.nml the insolvency or Nicholson and that they as agents of
vPatrick & Cp. had exercised the right.of tho.lattcr.of stopping the
gofids -Patrick & Co. at the same time intervened claiming to be the real
pafiy'.in'hiicrest. They were admitted to .defend and answered jus-
"tiyjiP' and adopting the acts of" "Fulton & Hensley in stopping the
. "itodds'on the ground that they were not paid for that Nicholson was
-insolvent and that the assignment to the plaintiff was in fraud of their
ifiJrhis' : There was a mass of evidence introduced on the irial which
Ji8 herq -unnecessary to-detail Various instructions were asked by
tho -parties respectively some of which were given and others refused.
WAln6iig;the instructions asked by the plaintiff and refused was the
jMft'Wju'ig'' " Tb'e ultimate destination of the goods is the point where
tho?r' vendee djtectB.tho vendor to send themNand if 'Nicholson
'?narrted. Lavaca ias the point .where the goods were to be sent then the
'firnval and delivery of the goods atLavaca to the consignee would
bfan .executed doU very su6h "ds ta desfrdy the right of stoppage in
transitu.
The Court proceeded to instruct the jury as follows: "If the jury
believe from the evidence that tfuTcoods in question were transferred
faith for a valuable consideration
' "toCharidler bv- Nicholson in cood
'& lie Chaiidler having no ''knowledge ol the Jailing circumstances of
fcWNichoiSon and tliat tne goous nau not ueen paiu.ior: ana u you
isjioiildurthfcr.beliovo that Por.t -Lavapa xynB the ultimate destination
j3f the.'goods)n question and that they had bfen phped in the ware-
rousefof 'F'ult'qn & liensley then the right of stoppage in transitu
''wa8ngbrJe-'r and" if "you shall further believe that the plaintiff or his
-iRgeits'offeredto pay the clia'rgqson the goods thenyoii shall' find far
.-itho 'plaiintiff theValue of the goods at Port: Lavaca"
I 2. (In subsistance.) That if JJastrop was the place of tlio u(t-
; 'mate destinqlion of the goods they were subject to the right of"storj-
''page'in '"transitu atLavaca. ' ''-
.' ntaS.nrThatat the time of tlio transfer Nicholson was" insolvent and
i.tUogo.ods. not paid for and Chandler know the facts the right of. the
...v.endor would not bo thereby defeated (
. " 4. -That Jf at the time of the demand of the goods by Chandler
. Fulton-fc'HunfSley had been notified by Pairick k Co. not to deliver
Vthemii) consequence orthe insolvency of Nicholson or that Patrick
4Cp subsequently adopted or recognized their acts and Nicholson
was in act insolvent the plaintiff could npt recover.
"." 5. .Tliat if frulton & Hensley proposed to Patrick & Co. to act as
tlieir'agetitsJln fiSfaluing the goods and the latter accepted their prop-
ir!'6sitioiiythe''fornidr1vere 'their legally constituted agentsfrom the date
'.of Jiei acceptance of the proposition. - "
'j-Thero was a .verdict and judgment for the defendants and the plain-tifrjappealed".
tU 'Note. Fot the facts in full the Reporter will refer to the Eecord.
iYlt4S)0bjeqtd ta the judgment tliat the Court' erred in permitting
.MtlWihtervdntfoKiof'the' ndfs'mis'comndsifi"'' the firm Of 'Patrick & Co.
Stilie' ihtervdntioh of' the' ndfsons'comnds
;BitliSiri'rit2frveiitibntHe consignor could not itis true shield thjj de.
.'jfejndante;ujtout Hqusley from responsibility; for their own unauthbr
f)zed"jicts. ' (BtU. ;tha rights of the cousignorsiwere in controversy be-
"tweeii the original parties to the suit. It id'Cvidcntlhat its decision
ifilgtit materially affpet their rights and prliaps'subject Hum to the
Necessity of further litigation. They were the real party in interest
adversely ta the plaintiff and wo think they wpre rightly admitted to
onablp.thc-'m the more effefeutually to assert and maintain 'their right
i;undin order that the whole controversy might be settled in one suit.
4jTjiedefenoefr.Q?.ted.on the right.of stoppage1 in transitu and the
pjincipalquestiou jn. (he case is -.whether tlm right existed and was
"Uljty .SJqisd is between jthc parties. Thisjnvqlvea the. inquiry
yjtrst whither the goods had reached their destination and had cdirn)'
.i'&PR88?.68)?1 of tbo vendee and if not fccQwlly whether the right
J&pf'tho consignors -was defeated by jjie assignment of the bill of la-
jauig '
Wl Tho'law Is 'Well settled that Avhefe goods have been shipped
TOio1i credit' the unpaid vendor in case ofN the vendee's 'insolvency
Maiiajr' stop" the. goods in'-'transitu;' tliat is lie may countermand the
delivery aud' resume the 'tiossession of tliC irBbds' before the'ir ri'mval
nf!tlw nlnnn nC AiElnnnif''i..iA1 i.iU.fi.L.J Ak..i -I'J't'r..' i ... .1 J
t v r.w w. Uvi . wn aim 11 uiujuhiu iu uo uuii&iuercu iimi me
lermanepivency vtien uscuwuir rererouce to mis branch pf the law
Tjneans a'general-iriability no- pay'cvidenqcfd'ijy stbppago of pnymeiit.
( Abbott on Shinninir. n fill no 5. Am. V.i'. femliVo A.r'ni:r ...
. t ' a . 4 t -vl ' U lUVtllilMlLUU I 11 vv.
...' "
cases in which a constriictlvu delivery will and -others in which it
.will not destroy the right. The delivery to a carricror packer to or
for the use of the vendee or to a wharfinger is a constructive delivery
t6 the vendee ; but it is (lot snHicient to aeicaiuia ngiu wvu iwh
the. carrier Iks appointed .by the vehdee. It will continue until the
ploce of delivery bo in fact the end of the journey of tho goods and
they havenrrived in the-posscsaioii of the vendee or under his direc-
tion;" (2d Kent Corn. 543-1.)
These are tlio general principles which have heed dedxiced.by emi-
jient jurists and elementary writers on this branch of tie law from
adjudicated cases. Questions of great nicety and difficulty frequent-
iy arise lu their applicatiPn. "In many .or thocases (says Kent) where
tho vendor's right of stopprtgc in lra7isitu has been defeated the de-
r.vnru von nniiRtrnntivn ntilv. and there has been much subtlety and
refinement on the question as to the facts and ciroumstunces which
wohld amount to a delivery sufficient to take away the right. J. he
point of enquiry is Vvhelher the property is to bo considered as still
in transitu ; for if it has once fairly arrived at its destination-so-as to
ivo the actual exercise of dominion and ownership over it the right
fs gone. The. caes in general oil the .subject of constructive delivery
may be reconciled by the. distinction that if a delivery to a carrier or
agent of the vendee be for the purpose qf ' convoyanccto thzvendee the
right of stoppage continues notwithstanding such tf constructive de-
livery to the vendee ; but jf the goods be delivered to a carrier or
agent for safe custody or disposal oil the part of the vendee and the
midclla man is by the agreement converted into a special agent for the
huver. the transit or the passage of the goods terminates and with it
the right of stoppage." (lb. O'M-5.) The same principle is adopted
as the test by which to determine this question by I ord Tentcrdcn
in his treatise on Shinning ( Abbott on Shipping p. G25;1! In all these
cases (of constructive delivery he says) the question is whether the
warehouseman or W harm rer be tne anent oi tne venc.ee 10 receive
the goods or his agent to forward them and the transiitus js not de-
termined unless possession be takert by the consignee as owner :
He may receive the goods into the warehouse of his agent or a lim-
ited purpose as for the benefit of the consignor to resort them to him
and the intention with which lie so receives them is a question pf
fuot." Applying this test to the present case the conclnsiou I think
must be that the transit of the goods was not determined at:d
that there was not such a delivery to the vendee as to prevent the
vendors from- exercising the right of stoppage in transitu.
I have examined attentively the leading cases on this point cited
and relied on in the Very elaborate and able argument o.f the counsel
for the appellant and they do not seem to me to warrant a different
cPiicllisibu. These goods with others were consigned "t the care of
Fulton & Hensley with instructions by the consignors to itse every
dfspatch in forwarding the goods to their respective destiniitions. They
looked to;the vendee Nicholson to bereimbnsed the freight and char
ges anu tlio letters addressed to in in in wincn tney saiainaiine goous
are still in their watehouse " subject tP his orders" that they had
formerly written to him advising him of their arrival to his address
and asking instruction what futher disposition to make of them and
adding that "they will "hold on to the goods" until he " orders them'
awav." were nrobablv only intended to advise him o.f the arrival of
his goods 'that they would be forwarded upon paymen v of dues aud
to .quicken his diligence in making payment and enabling' them to
carry out the instructions df the consignors to use every dispatch
in forwarding them. They undoubtedly assumed the character of
Agents forthe vendee ; but not by any new agreement'which impress-
ed on them a new character dislitibt from that of agents to forward
the goods pursuant to the original contract. Theevic'leuce is seem?
to me docs not warrant the conclusion that they were not the agents
of the vendeeto forward the goods but his agents mere Iy for safe cus-
tody and disposal by him and this as webaveseen is the test by which
to ascertain whether the right of stoppage is determined. The dis-
tinction is thus. stated in the treatise on Shipping from which I have
before quoted :
" A case of 'constructive possession by the vendee of goods remain-
ing in tlie hands of the carrier is whore the carrier enters expressly
or by implication into a new agreement distinct .from tluv original con-
tract fdr carriage to hold the goods for the consignee as liis agent not
for the purpose of expediting them to the place of the original desti-
natination pursuant to that contract but in a new character for the
purpose of custody on his account' and subject to somii new or furth-
er order to be given by him" (Abbott on Shipping G24-5.) I appre-
hend that iio new or further order in the sense of the text I have quo-
ted was by understanding of-the parties express or implied to be giv?
en in this case. The case I take it was si.mply'this. Nicholson was
in default of payment of freight and charges and Fulton & Hensley
did hot choose to forward on the goods unless upon pi.yment and his
orders and hence they retained them. " If the goods (it has been
hold) have arrived at the port of delivery and arc lodged in a public
warehouse for default of payment of the duties they are not deemed
to have come to the possession of the vendee so as. to deprive the
consignor of his right (2 Kent Com.- 54G w. 9.) This is not that
case ; but it is not materially different in principle. If by coutfact
with the vendee express or implied the relation in which the defend-
ants Fulton &' ii.ensley 6tood before as mere instrumemts in the con-
veyance of the goods to the appointed place of destination was changed
and they became the agents of the vendee for a new and different pur-
pose it is clear that it was such a constructive possession on the part
of the vendee as would determine' the right of the consignors .nd
it has been hold that such constructive possession may exist even
while the goods are in the hands of intermediate agents not profess-
edly oo.tjng for either party if it appear that iu point oV fac.t they held
them for the -vendee aud that the transitus is regarded by the vendor
or his agents as at an end.
The snrne rule it is said will prevail where the goods are still in tlje
custody of the carrier by whom they have been forwarded if it dis-
tinctly 'appear that he has exprpssly or by implicatiora agreed to hold
tli'bin as agent for the vendees and riot dp behalf of tlie vendors for
the purpose of. the transitus and this has' been held sufficiently' es-
tablished "by evidence that it was the custom ok the carriers employ
ed upon the arrival of the goods at the town near tho residence of the
purchaser to store them for safe keeping iu their watehouse until he sent
.for aud took them away in his carts and that goods of Which tho
stoppage was in question wore warehoused under these circumstunces
at the time it was effected. But these decisions appear lo have rested
ou tho ground that tho final delivery contemplated by the .parlies lidd
been effected and that tjiu goods had iu effect come to tlie hands of
the persons by whom they had been purchased. Sickb'arrow vs.
Mason 1 grrt. L. C. 388 3 L. Library edit and cases cited in notes.
On the other hand it is clearly settled that tuough the goods be de-
livered b au agent of tho vendea or to a person in his employ and
though placed on hoard his ship or in his warehouse still if this be
dono with the view of forwarding them to tho vendee himself atid' the
direction iu which they have been moving nnd aru still to move be
the result of the original impulse impressed upon them at the begin
ning of tlio transitus tho power of the consignor to remove tlutm in
to his possession will continue. - Aud all bailments mado in pursuance
of the original design of the vendor whero that has been to bring the
goods more abnolutuly to tho possession of tho vendee are in fact as
to tho completion of tho transitus bailmcuta ou the uccouut nnd to
tiietigcma ot.tho vendor j and this although tuudo to persons In tho
employment of tho vendee lb. J '
i'hocBt) of Buckley v. tfiiniwj'lG Wend 137 i nn illustration of
intermediate place. Tlie 'goods were accordingly forwarded and af.
tor their arHvaPat the ihteTinediato place were delivered to a common
carrier employed by tho 'purchaser;' but1 beforo reaching his residence
the possession' of the goodd was. resumed by the vendor on the ground
of tho insolvency of the purchaser. And it was held tliat the goods
not haying arrived at tho place of their finnl destination the transitus
was not ended aiid the vendor had a right to ritop and detain them
until the price was paid. Tile Court adopted tho principle as stated by
Baleyj J. in Coats vs. Barton G B. & C. $22 as the principle to bo
deduced from the cases that"" the transitus is not at nn end until the
roods have reached the place named by the buyer to tlio seller as the
place of their destination." A now trial having beep awarded by this
opinion tho case came a second timo before tho Supreme Court and
the famo prnciple wns4again aflirmt'd. 17 "Wend. 504.
The conclusion to be drawn from the cases seems to be thntwheth-
er the final delivery has been effected which determines the ri-Mit of
Btoppage in transitu is to be decided according" to the intention of tho
parties in. each caso by examining whether they contemplated any
ftirhcr and more absolute reduction into possession on the part of the
vendee. With what intention tile goods were delivered to an anem
of the vendee or any bailment o'f the goodswns made is of course a
question of fact to bo decided by tho jury upon the evidence in tlio
case. lb. Abbott on Shipping 625.
It is not necessary to a valid stoppage iu transitu that a party by
whom it is effected should have received special authority to that
effect. The authority of a general agent is sufficient. Whitehead
v. Anderson 9 M. & W. 518 and it has been held that where the
circumstances are such as to give a legal right; a stranger may exer-
cise it provided a subsequent ratification be given. Bell v. Morse
5 Wharton 187. But in Whitehead v. Anderson above cited tho
latter point va3 doubted.
The agency of Fulton &Hensley conferred on them by the consign-
ors in this case was' doubtless sufficient to authorise them to act on
behalf of tho latter. We concludo therefore that the right of stop-
page in transitu existed and was rightfully exercised as between the
wendor and vendee or that the evidence was such as to authorise tho
jury so to find.
2. It remains toenquire whether the right of the consignors was de-
feated by" the assignment to the plaintiff of the bill of lading. A gen-
eral assignment for tho benefit of creditors or a seizure by an execu
tion creditor or under process of foreign attachment against the con-
signee will not affect the right of the consignor. 'The fact of an
assignment for the benefit of creditors is of itself notice to the as-
signeo of tho insolvency of the consignee and of the consequent lia-
bility of the goods to seizure by the consignor. (I Smith L. C in
notes on Sickbarrow vs. Mason and 15th Wend. 137. 17 ib. 504.
8 Pick 198). Ner will a sale for a valuable consideration unaccom-
panied by a transfer of the bill of lading although quite sufficient to
pass tho property iu the goods affect the power of the consignor to
stop them in transitu. The absence of the bill of lading being con-
sidered as constructive notice that the consignee has not paid for tho
goods and that the consignor has not waive!! his right of resuming
his lien fdr the purchase money (I Smith L. C baforo cited. 1G
rick 473. 2 ib. 399. 9 Mass. Gfl. "GTarmt 433)
But it is well settled that the right to stop in transitu may be de-
feated by the vendee by negotiating the bill of lading with a bona fide
indorsee. This was the turning point of the leading case pf Sick-
barrow vs. Mason than which says Kent there is uo case on mer-
cantile law which has afforded a greater display of acute investiga-
tjou. And he adds ' it seems now to be considered the law ac
Westminster Hall that if a bill of lading bo assigned bona fide and
for a valua'ble consideration it is a transfer of tho property and in
the case of the consignee if it be mnde without notice of the insol
vency of the consignee the property is. absolutely vested in the as-
llfiOtfY" ' "" 1 "
''iSpJ)? VV.'i.6?'u rms'.mightiinport.can only- take
Jpace while tftej goods arc on their way. If they atrive at their place
ofhiinaitoideatliiatfoir and come into the possession of vendee-' there
ifii'an end of the vendor's right over themand therefore in mort'of the
"cases' on this Bhbject the questionrhqs beep' whether .the goods had
' .9Jffiotnrr4ycw at; termination ot-1heir;quniey. "Tho .rule lo
Vbecolfected from nil tho cases (it 1ms beeu.said) .is.lhat thoy are in
.'Xransjtti so lqng1u81thcynrp.jnlhe hands of the cameras such wheth.
' er.no was or was not nppointed by tho consignee and also so lonaB'
" IJJhcy4r9m'nijrt humy place of deposit connected Aviih their transmission."
(bickbarrow vesiWasou 1 nm L. U. 410 w)
'A&pooda ne deemed to-bo in transitu not onljc whilo they remain
in the" possession of the carrier whether by water or luud and al-
fliougli 6uoh enrrier nlny hnve been named nnd appointed by the con-
's.gijeo uui into wiii'ii uioy nro in any pincc ot ueppsit connected
VlfWtltillft I lYlS4)litt tlttfl (l.fcl tlKlftf rt t liUIVI n till l t I r. Jl .1.1
iju mini muy uinvuuillie
gupo nt ino-niqeo nmned
T ( Abbott on ShinnimA
&2MX 1Ulp.4niM6itge.qfH.tho.apqdsnudJ1eoneequently4lio right of
'- " i -- ---.-.. .... .- - . . . .v i
49WaoSijotQrmiicil.uytiicaitttal.dolivory to the vendee;or by cir-Mils prluolnlbf A party rosidingatu distance 'from his correspondent
cumstnnces which nre equivalent to atitunl delivery.- 'Tlicro are ordefed tt rJuV.titlty of 'inehandTHo dlrectiilg H to bo forwtmled to-nu
signeo" of the consignee and the consignor has in that case lost his
right to stop. It is likewise considered to be the law in this country
that the delivery of the bill of lading transfers the property tothe
consignee and it seems to be conceded that the assignment of it by
the consignee by way of sale or mottgage will pass the property
though no actual delivery of the goods be made provided they were
then at sea. The sale'is founded ou sound principles of mercantile
policy and js necessary to render the consignee safe in acceptance of
the drafts of his correspondent abroad and to afford him thoimeans of
prompt reimbursement or indemnity." (2 Kent Com. 518-9. Ab-
bott on Shipping 5 Am. Fdit. G38. n.)
While therefore the goods remain unpaid for. and the transitus
continues the right of the vendor to stop them upon the occurrence
of insolvency in tho vendee may bo defeated by a bona fide sale or
rnortgagoof the goods for a valuable consideration accompanied with
a transfer of .the bill of lading. All these requisites however must
coucur. (lb. 16 Pick 473.) And it is not to be understood that in
all cases a sale by tho consignee accompanied by an assignment of
the bill of lading even for a valuable consideration will defeat the
right of the consignor to stop the goods. " If the consignee of the
bill of lading has notice of such circumstances as render tho bill of
lading not fairly and honestly assignable the right of stoppage as
against tho assignee js not gone and any collusion 'or fraud between
the consignee and his assignee will of course enable the consignor to
assert his right. But tho more fact that the nssigpee has notice that
the consignor is not paid does uot seem to be of itself ab3olutely suf-
ficient'to render the assignment defeasible by the stoppage of the
cargo in transit if tho case be otherwise cleat of all circumstances- of
fraud ; though if the assignee bo aware that -the consignee is unable
to pay then the assignment will be deemed fraudulent as against the
rights of the consignbr." 2 Kent Corn. 550.
Tho validity of( the consignment is uot confined to these cases iu
which the assignee has no notice that the goods have not been abso-
lutely paid for in money. If tho assignee takes an assignment bona
fide without notice of any such circumstances as would render the
bill of lading not fairly and honestly assignable he acquires a good
title against the consignor. Goods nro seldom actually paid for in
money at the time of their .shipment ; .in general a -bill of oxchango
isdrawn for the price. If a person knowing that such is the transac-
tion and tha-. tho bill of exchange has been accepted tukes nn assign-
ment of the bill of lading fairly and honestly for a valuable conside-
ration before the money ( becomes payable without any reason to
know or apprehend that tho consignee is likely to fail and not pay the
monoy in dud course" the consignor cannot preent the delivery of
tho goods. This has been fjolomnly decided in the Court of King's
Bench But if a person assist in contravening the actual torms of
the sale on the part of the consignor or his reasonable expectations
arising out of thwnr dr his rights connected therewith ; -if for instance
ho knows that the consignee is iu insolvent circumstances that no
bill has been accepted for the price or that being accepted it is not
likely to bo paid he will stand in the same situation with the con-
signee and his interposition under such circumstances being in fraud
of this riglit of tlTo consignor will not bo available to defeat it."
Abbptt ou Shipping G40.J
These references will suffioo to show uudor what nircumstances
an assignment of tho hill of lading j wuy of snlo or inortgngo of
the goods will dufeut tho right(of stoppage in transitu. It will have
been seen that it io not absolutely neccssury to tho validity of tho as
signment that tho assignee should bo iguorunt that tho goods hnvo
not been Vnidfor. If he takes tho assignment bona' fide without a
knowledge of tiyeuch circumstances uh would tender tho bill of
lading not fuirly.uud honestly assignable ho acquires a' good title as
against the consignor..- (But if ou the other hand hu takes the assign-
inuut Under such circumstances or with notice of such facts as ull'oid
U
1 1
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Crawford, G. W. & Hampton, J. W. Texas State Gazette. (Austin, Tex.), Vol. 4, No. 39, Ed. 1, Saturday, May 14, 1853, newspaper, May 14, 1853; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth81083/m1/4/: accessed May 4, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.