Platt v. Wells
The Superior Court of New York City
In June, 1855, the plaintiffs, merchants in the city of New York, made a conditional sale-of jewelry of the value of $8,500 to Larue P. Anderson.
Read the full summary
In June, 1855, the plaintiffs, merchants in the city of New York, made a conditional sale-of jewelry of the value of $8,500 to Larue P. Anderson. The conditions were that it was to be paid for in a note, to be signed by Anderson and one Daniel C. Munro, and guarantied by one John Munro, payable in one year from date, and that the jewelry should be sent by plaintiffs to Daniel C. Munro,. to be by him delivered to Anderson, upon the making and delivery to plaintiffs of the 'promissory note above described. The goods were delivered by the plaintiffs to the American Express Company, for carriage,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court, Robertson, Chief Justice.
Mr. Munro, to whom the box of jewelry in question was directed, had neither made, or offered to make, any contract with the plaintiffs. That fact was not communicated to the defendants. They were equally ignorant of whatever fraud, if any, had been perpetrated by Anderson in inducing the plaintiffs to send it so directed. Their duty ended with delivering the goods either to Munro or some one authorized by him to receive them. Whether Munro was a party to the fraud, in taking possession of them, or was deceived by Anderson, in procuring authority from him…
2Cited by5 opinions
- The CommercenSupreme Court of the United States · 1816
- Wolf v. WolfSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1857
- The Fortuna— KrauseSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
- McAdam v. SoriaSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1879
- The CommercenSupreme Court of the United States · 1816