Toland v. Murray
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the value of goods consigned by the plaintiff to the defendants, to be sold by them, as his factors. The plaintiff’s counsel, at the trial, stated, that the plaintiff and RichardJ\l. Mead, of Cadiz, owned a quantity of tin. It was proved that early in the year 1813,Mead shipped the tin from Cadiz, consigned to the plaintiff residing in Philadelphia, to be sold for their joint account.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover the value of goods consigned by the plaintiff to the defendants, to be sold by them, as his factors. The plaintiff’s counsel, at the trial, stated, that the plaintiff and RichardJ\l. Mead, of Cadiz, owned a quantity of tin. It was proved that early in the year 1813,Mead shipped the tin from Cadiz, consigned to the plaintiff residing in Philadelphia, to be sold for their joint account. The ship arrived at New-York, and the plaintiff sent theinvoice and bill of lading to the defendants, with instructions to sell the tin. The defendants sold,…
1Per curiam
We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision at Nisi Prius. It is immaterial who was the real owner of the goods. They were received by the defendants of the plaintiff, who had a lawful right to commission them to sell the? goods as his sub-agents. They must account to him, as their immediate principal, so that he may settle with Mead. Toland has a prior lien on the goods, for advances which he may have made ; and he has *26a right to compel the defendants to account to him. (Drinkwater v. Goodwin, Cowp, 251. 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 573.)
Motion for a new trial denied.
Judgment for the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Murray & Murray v. Toland & MeadeNew York Court of Chancery · 1818
3Cited by3 opinions
- Freudenheim v. . G&220tterNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
- Newbold v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833
- Rogers v. BradfordWisconsin Supreme Court · 1844