Casson v. Field
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal by defendants from judgment entered on verdict of jury, and from an order denying motion for new trial on the minutes. Action of trover against brokers for an alleged sale-against instructions. The defense was (1st) that the goods were sold by plaintiff’s order, and (2d) that they were sold for a general balance due for advances. Further facts appear in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Truax, J.
It is not necessary for us to determine in this case whether the defendants had or had not a general lien for advances to plaintiff on the particular goods that are the subject of controversy in this action. It is well settled that a factor must obey the instructions of his principal as to the sale of the goods consigned to him, although he has made advances, unless the principal, after reasonable notice, fail to pay such advances'(Hilton v. Vanderbilt, 82 N. Y. 591; Manfield v. Goodhue, 3 Ib. 62). The evidence shows that plaintiff consigned certain goods to defendants…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hilton v. . VanderbiltNew York Court of Appeals · 1880