Collings v. Hope
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
Mr. Claudius, residing in Philadelphia, the agent of the plaintiffs, merchants at Rotterdam, was in the habit of procuring consignments to his principals, and of making ad-vanees on the shipments, to the amount of two-thirds of the invoice value, by bills on a house in London. Copies of the invoice and bill of lading, he enclosed to the house in London, as well as to the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Mr. Claudius, residing in Philadelphia, the agent of the plaintiffs, merchants at Rotterdam, was in the habit of procuring consignments to his principals, and of making ad-vanees on the shipments, to the amount of two-thirds of the invoice value, by bills on a house in London. Copies of the invoice and bill of lading, he enclosed to the house in London, as well as to the plaintiffs. In November, 1807, the defendant proposed to ship a parcel of coffee to the house at Rotterdam, upon which Claudius agreed to make the usual advance, and drew a bill on the house in London, in favour of the…
1Opinion of the Court
WASHINGTON, Circuit Justice,
charged the jury. What is called the custom or usage of trade, is the law of that trade; and to make it at all obligatory, it must be ancient, (sufficiently so at least, to be generally known,) certain, uniform, and reasonable. A usage of so doubtful authority as to be known only to a few, and where merchants engaged in the trade differ as they do in this case, as to the existence of it, can never be regarded. The one now set up, is an unnatural one; for, although the shipper may consent to let the agent make the insurance, yet in general, he would prefer making…
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. BuchananSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Astor v. Union InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Newbold v. WrightSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1833