Irving National Bank v. Thomas Emery's Sons
Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati
On the 24th of March., 1869, G. M. Mirrielies, in New York, drew a bill of exchange on defendants, a firm doing business in Cincinnati, payable on demand to his order, for $299, which he negotiated the same day with the plaintiff, who advanced the money; whereupon the drawer, as collateral security, deposited with them a bill of lading, signed by an agent of the “ Atlantic Time Line,” admitting the shipment of three casks of stearine by Mirrielies, to be delivered to the…
Read the full summary
On the 24th of March., 1869, G. M. Mirrielies, in New York, drew a bill of exchange on defendants, a firm doing business in Cincinnati, payable on demand to his order, for $299, which he negotiated the same day with the plaintiff, who advanced the money; whereupon the drawer, as collateral security, deposited with them a bill of lading, signed by an agent of the “ Atlantic Time Line,” admitting the shipment of three casks of stearine by Mirrielies, to be delivered to the defendants in Cincinnati. On the 26th of the same month, Mirrielies negotiated another bill with the plaintiff, drawn on…
1Opinion of the Court
Storer J.
This action is brought to recover the value of the property described in the bill of lading, and the *78question is presented, what title did the plaintiff acquire by the deposit of the bills of lading when the drafts were negotiated?
Since the decision in Lickbarrow v. Mason, 2 T. R. 75, it has never been doubted that the transfer of a bill of lading by the consignor, as a general rule, transfers the property it describes, if made for value and in good faith; and although the presumption may well be that the consignor, by the shipment and the carrier’s contract to deliver to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Walter v. RossU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania · 1808